Skip to main content

Full text of "The Hibeh papyri"

See other formats

i- =e" 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation egypuoft 


Cn ei DT) : ni i I 
(ene _ + f ey} 7 
1 ; vy fi 
7 i is {1% A j 
al uJ 
iq - ar ey 
‘ : AN ! : 
; Mtg , : 
1 Pi 7 y : 
f : : 
J y 
A i T ‘i i ; 
Pees a 
' a 
} ; 
it y - AnD 
ip 8 uy 
; Mh SU 
v) i) aa 
Y - U 
; j 
a / i i 
BI ; 
" ve 
; i 

; i 
7 - 
7 | 

ete back Y Ki) 

PAR =! 




mpeoea li BEM PALPY RI 

Peek ll 






NRE ORS ee Ni Vea, Deir. 



7 f 
= / Kien roe, 

Hi if 
LONDON eee / 
Tue Orrices or THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND, 37 Great RussEti St., W.C. 



reel CoE PA 
| : AN 14 19/5 Za — 

Sj | 
Vy, 8 /\ 

; fRsity OF yore . 



Ie [Radel en 1s 

Tue papyri which form the subject of the present volume were 
obtained in the spring of 1902 from the Ptolemaic necropolis of 
El-Hibeh, partly by purchase, partly from our first excavations at 
that site, as is recorded in the Introduction. On p. 5 will be found 
an explanation of the remarkable fact that some of the literary papyri 
here edited belong to MSS. of which fragments were published by 
us in 1897. The papyri were, with one exception (no. 23), derived 
from mummy-cartonnage, and all belong to the third century B. c. 

In editing the classical fragments we have continued to avail 
ourselves very largely of the most generous assistance of Professor 
F, Blass, whose weighty judgement we have followed in the authorship 
suggested for most of the new pieces (nos. 1-18), and to whom is 
due much of their reconstruction and interpretation, besides many 
suggestions on difficulties arising in the fragments of extant authors 
(nos, 19-26). With regard to the non-literary texts we have received 
much help from Professor J. G. Smyly, who has not only placed at our 
service his intimate acquaintance with the contemporary Petrie papyri, 
but has in many cases revised our decipherments of the texts and 
made suggestions for their interpretation. His knowledge of ancient 
mathematics has materially assisted in the elucidation of the astro- 
nomical calendar (no. 27), and without his aid we should certainly not 
have ventured, as we have done in Appendix I, upon the difficult, 
perhaps even hopeless, task of attempting to solve the perplexing 
problems connected with the Macedonian calendar. Our _proof- 
sheets have also had the advantage of having been read through by 
Dr. J. P. Mahaffy, to whose liberality we owe the insertion of 
a facsimile of the calendar (Plate VIII). Some assistance which we 
have received from other scholars on special points is acknowledged 
in connexion with the individual papyri. 

For the interpretation of several demotic dockets appended to the 
Greek texts we are indebted to Mr. F. LI. Griffith, who has generously 
allowed us to utilize his forthcoming edition of demotic papyri in the 
John Rylands Library. 


A few words of explanation are due concerning the alternative 
years B.c. on the Julian calendar into which for the convenience of 
our readers the dates by the king’s reign are converted. Apart from 
the difficulties caused by the frequent employment of the Macedonian 
in preference to the Egyptian months for dating purposes, an element 
of uncertainty is introduced into the conversion of practically all early 
Ptolemaic dates into their equivalents on the Julian calendar owing to 
the fact that at least two systems of reckoning the king’s years were 
in common use, while papyri rarely provide any indication which 
method is being employed in a particular case. The nature of these 
different systems is discussed in Appendix II, but the evidence 
is unfortunately at present insufficient for a satisfactory explanation. 
Accordingly we have converted the dates by the king’s years into 
what (granting the correctness of the Canon of Ptolemaic kings) are 
their equivalents on the Julian calendar, firstly on the conventional 
assumption that the king’s years were reckoned from Thoth 1 of the 
annus vagus, the balance of days between his accession and the next 
Thoth 1 being counted as his 1st year, and secondly on the assumption 
(which is likely to be correct in many cases) that another system of 
reckoning the king’s years was employed, according to which the dates 
when expressed by the Julian calendar may be a year later than they 
would have been if the first system had been employed. The dates 
p.c. which result or may result from the use of the second system are 
enclosed in brackets. 

In conclusion we have to beg the indulgence of subscribers to the 
Graeco-Roman Branch for presenting them with a memoir which on 
account of its length is to count as a double volume. The next 
memoir of the Branch, Part V of the Oxyrhynchus Papyrz, in which 
we shall begin the publication of the very important literary texts 
discovered in 1905-6 (cf. The Times, May 14, 1906), is already in hand, 
and we hope to issue it in June, 1907. 


Oxrorp, J/ay, 1906. 


PREFACE : : ; ; : : : : ; ‘ : : Vv 
List oF PuaTEs . : : , : : : vid var 
TaBLeE OF Papyri : ; : : ; ; d ix 
Note oN THE METHOD OF PoRreMaraN AND List OF ioe : : a) xii 
INTRODUCTION : : : : ; : : : : : : : I 

I. New Crassicat Fracments (1-18) . ; : 42 as 

II. Fracments or Extanr CrassicaL AUTHORS (19- _26) ; nO 
III. Carenpar (27) : : : ; . . 2138 
IV. Roya Orprnances (28-29) . A : : : Pe benay 
V. Lxcat Documents (80-32) . ; : ; ; . 165 
VI. DercraraTions AND Petitions (33-38) : ‘ : 5 bye 
VII. Orrictat anp Private CoRRESPONDENCE (39-83). : : : . 81 
VIII. Contracts (84a-96) . : : . = 242 
IX. Receipts (97-109) : : ; : : . 269 
X. Accounts (110-121) ; ; , : 286 
XI. Descriptions or DocumEnTS (122-171) : ; esa 


I. Tue Maceponran anp EcypTiAN CALENDARS . : ; ; : © 28 

Il. Tue Systems or Datinc By THE YEARS OF THE Kino . : : BGR 
III. Tue Eronymous PRIESTHOODS FROM B.C. 301-221. : é : E307; 


I. New CrasstcaL FRAGMENTS . : , : : : Baby; 

II. Kuines ; : : : : : ‘ ; ; : ess 
Il]. Monrtus . : ‘ : : ; : , : - 384 
IV. Personar Names. : ; f 3 i , ; . 385 
V. GEOGRAPHICAL . , : : : : : - 301 
VI. ReEticIon . F : ‘ : 303 

VII. OFFicIAL AND eee ae : 3 : : : : : - 394 


Weicuts, Mrasurss, Corns 
TAXES . : ; 



19, 20, 21, 23, 24 

7, 84 (4) . 

ai: 5 ; 
88, 97, 99, 100 (rec/o) 


at the end. 


° aig Qoapwopn ee 

Abe Or apa PY Rad 

Epicharmus, Pvpa (Plate 1) 
~Epicharmus (?), Tv@pac 

. -Sophocles, Zyro (?) (Plate H) 

. ~Euripides, Oeneus (?) (Plate I) . 
. ~ Philemon (?) (Plate I11) 

. Comedy (Plate IV) . 

Anthology (Plate VII) 
/Epic Fragment 

. /Epic Fragment (Plate V) 
. /Tragic Fragment (Plate : ) 

Tragic Fragment 
Comic Fragment 

. ~ Hippias (?), Descourse on Masi (Plate Vv). 

- Lysias, Jn Theozotidem (Plate 1) 

: eaneoncal Exercise (Plate Il) . 
. *Theophrastus (?) 

Sayings of Simonides 
Literary Fragment 
“Homer, //ad ii and iii (Plate V1) 
Homer, //iad iii-v (Plate VI) 
Homer, J/iad viii (Plate VI) 
Homer, J/tad xxi-xxill 
Homer, Odyssey xx (Plate V1). ; 
~ Euripides, /phigenia tn Taurts (Plate VI) . 

. ~ Euripides 

~ Anaximenes (?), ae mpos cep (Plate II!) 
Calendar for the Saite Nome (Plate V san 
Constitutional Regulations 

Finance Laws . 

Judicial Summons 

Abstract of a Case for Trial 

Sequestration of Property 

Property-Return of Sheep 


B. C. 

. 280-240 
. 280-240 
. 280-240 
. 300-280 
. 280-240 
. 300-280 
. 250-210 
. 280-240 
. 300-280 
. 280-240 
. 280-240 
>. 280-240 


. 280-240 
. 280-240 
. 280-240 
. 280-240 
c. 280-240 
. 285-250 


. 290-260 
. 280-240 
. 285-250 
. 280-240 
. 280-240 
. 285-250 




300-271 . 









34. Petition to the King : : ; . 243-2 . souete7 5 
35. Petition of Hieroduli : ete) : : 176 
36. Notice of Loss : ‘ ; . 229 : (7) 
37. Notice of Loss : : : ; ; -09235 : ; 178 
38. Declaration on Oath : : . 252-5. : - io 
39. Letter of Xanthus to HBHEAHOE : 5 : > §265 : 5 gu 
40. Letter of Polemon to Harimouthes . : a2 On : : > as2 
41. Letter of Polemon to Harimouthes . ; : oCu20t a : a athe) 
42. Letter of Callicles to Harimouthes . : 5 262 ; ; . 184 
43. Letter of Callicles to Harimouthes . ; ; zon ; - 185 
44. Letter of Dinon to Harimouthes ; : 7258 : : . 186 
45. Letter of Leodamas to Lysimachus . saa : ’ . 184 
46. Letter of Leodamas to Lysimachus . . 258 ; . 189 
47. Letter of Leodamas to Lysimachus . : . 256 , | 2885 
48. Letter of Leodamas to Lysimachus . , e255 , » Ou 
49. Letter of Leodamas to Laomedon . : : es ee : toe 
50. Letter of Leodamas to Theodorus . : CuC.82)5 fae : » -103 
51. Letter of Demophon to Ptolemaeus . . i24r : ; “ § O4: 
52. Letter of Demophon to Ptolemaeus . , ; = AC ha24 Bae : .. 196 
53. Letter of Demophon to Ptolemaeus . : . 246 , . 199 
54. Letter of Demophon to Ptolemaeus . : : 3 SOA Re. : . 200 
55. Letter of Scythes to Ptolemaeus ; i : 250 . . | 202 
56. Letter of Patron to Ptolemaeus : ; : . 249 : : 202 
57. Letter of Dionysodorus (?) to Ptolemaeus . ; say 25203 
58. Letter of Dionysodorus to Ptolemaeus é : a abd ; . 204 
59. Letter of Zenodorus to Ptolemaeus . : =) IC 245) ee . 205 
60. Letter of Zenodorus to Ptolemaeus . A Ob ste ic : . 206 
61. Letter to Ptolemaeus : : . 245 ; shee 
62. Letter of Philippus to piolemaens : : 24 ; . 207 
63. Letter of Criton to Plutarchus .~ . SOR :  ae205 
64. Letter of Paris to Plutarchus . 4 : : . 264 ! : . 210 
65. Letter concerning Paris . : , : : .» UGuaGR sw. : Be FRA 
66. Letter of Protarchus to Clitarchus . : . 228 ; > ite 
67. Letter concerning Payment of Cloth-w aes . 228 : needa: 
68. Letter concerning Payment of Cloth-workers  . Cee Onan : ae 
69. Letter of Asclepiades to Clitarchus . ; : o250 92k 
70 (a). Letter of Zoilus to Clitarchus . ; . 229-8.  @ BIO 
70 (4). Letter to Clitarchus . : ; , ee Lene yviska © ‘ + oa 
71. Correspondence concerning a Strike . : » 245 ae 

72. Correspondence concerning a Temple Seal sy) at eee 

84 (a). 
84. (0). 
~~ 94, 


Letter of Antigonus to Dorion . 

Order for Payment . 

Letter of Theodorus to the Phylacitae 
Order for Payment . . 
Letter concerning the Priestly Revanes 
Letter of Nicias to Argaeus 

Letter of Ptolemaeus to Heraclides 
Export of Wine 

Official Correspondence concerning Glerichs 
Official Correspondence ; 
Letter concerning a Payment of Corn 
Sale of Wheat (Plate IX) . 

Date by a Ptolemaic Era (?) (Plate vip 
Loan of Seed-Corn . 

Loan of Corn . 

Advance of Seed-Corn 

Loan of Money (Plate X) 
Loan of Money 

Lease of Land 

Lease of Land 

Contract of Surety . 

Contract of Surety 

Contract of Surety . 

Contract of Surety . 

Renunciation of Claims 

Receipt (Plate X) 

Receipt of a Captain 

Receipt for Rent (Plate X) 

Account. Receipt for Rent (Plate x) 
Receipt for Rent ; 
Payment of Physician-Tax 

Receipt for Physician-Tax and Police! Tex 
Receipt for Various Taxes : 
Receipt for Police-Tax 

Receipt for Beer-Tax 

Receipt for Beer-Tax 

Receipt for Bath-Tax 

Receipt for aépoipa 

Accounts. Postal Register 

List of Cases and Fines 

en 250 
c. 260 
Cc. 258-7 . 
222 i 
244-3 Bn poe 
Cc. 250 
259 : 
279-8 or 282-1 


258 on ans 

C. 270-C. 255 - 
Cc. 250 


112. Taxing-List . : : : ; ; . . wcH26ome : . 296 
118. Banker’s Account . : ; ; : : + 4C.p200)qe ; «302 
114. Official Account. : : . : : 24s ‘ : 5 9305 
115. Account of Taxes on Sacrifices and Wool ; «, CL 2ROw , 7 «07 
116. Account of Bath-Tax . : : : 3 3) AC 24 ame . ar 
117. Return of Corn Revenue . : - 239 0r ng ee 313 
118. Account of Olyra_ . 5 : : & 1C25OF : 314 
119. Account of Rent. ; ; aC: 2OOREe. : But] 
120. Account of Goats . ; : ; . 250-49 . : 319 
121. Private Account : : : : : . 251-0. 320 

122-171. Miscellaneous Documents . : ; = /3rd'cent.: 3. eH 


THE general system followed in this volume is that of its predecessors. 
Literary texts are printed as they appear in the originals, except for division of 
words, capital initials in proper names, and reconstruction, where practicable, of 
lacunae. Additions or corrections by the same hand as the body of the texts 
are in small thin type, those by a different hand in thick type. Non-literary 
documents are printed in modern style with accentuation and punctuation: 
abbreviations and symbols are resolved, while additions and corrections are 
usually incorporated in the text, their occurrence being recorded in the 
critical notes; but where special considerations make this method inconvenient, 
alterations in the original have been reproduced, later hands being distinguished, 
as in the literary texts, by thick type. Faults of orthography, &c., are corrected 
in the critical apparatus wherever they seemed likely to cause any difficulty. 
Iota adscript is printed when so written, otherwise iota subscript is used. 
Square brackets [ ] indicate a lacuna, round brackets ( ) the resolution of 
a symbol or abbreviation, angular brackets ¢ ) a mistaken omission in the 
original, braces { } a superfluous letter or letters, double square brackets 
[. ]] a deletion in the original. Dots placed within brackets represent the 
approximate number of letters lost or deleted; dots outside brackets indicate 
mutilated or otherwise illegible letters. Letters with dots underneath them are 
to be considered doubtful. Heavy Arabic numerals refer to the texts of the 
present volume, ordinary numerals to lines, small Roman numerals to columns. 
On the numeration of the different mummies from which the papyri were 
obtained see pp. 11-12; and on the alternative years B.C. in expressing dates 
according to the Julian calendar see the Preface. 


The abbreviations used in referring to papyrological publications are 
practically the same as those adopted by Wilcken in Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung, 
I, pp. 25-8, viz. :— 

P. Amh. — The Amherst Papyri (Greek), Vols. I and II, by B. P. Grenfell and 
A. S. Hunt: 

Archiv = Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung. 

B. G. U. = Aeg. Urkunden aus den Konig]. Museen zu Berlin, Griech. Urkunden. 

P. Brit. Mus. = Catalogue of Greek Papyri in the British Museum, Vols. I and II, 
by F. G. Kenyon. 

C. P. R. = Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, Vol. I, by C. Wessely. 

P. Cairo = Catalogue of Greek Papyri in the Cairo Museum, by B. P. Grenfell 
and A. S. Hunt. 

Pp. Fay. = Faytim Towns and their Papyri, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and 
D. G. Hogarth. 

P. Gen. = Les Papyrus de Geneve, by J. Nicole. 

P, Grenf. = Greek Papyri, Series I, by B. P. Grenfell, and Series II, by 
B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 

P. Leyden = Papyri Graeci Musei antiquarii Lugduni-Batavi, by C. Leemans. 

P. Magd. = Papyrus de Magdola, Badlletin de Corr. hell, xxvi, pp. 95-128, 
xxvii, pp. 174-205, by P. Jouguet and G. Lefebvre. 

P. Oxy. = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Parts I-IV, by B. P. Grenfell and 
A. S. Hunt. 

P. Par. = Les Papyrus Grecs du Musée du Louvre, Notices et Extraits, t. Xviil, 2, 
by W. Brunet de Presle and E. Egger. 

P. Petrie = The Flinders Petrie Papyri, Parts I and II by the Rev. J. P. Mahaffy, 
Part III by the Rev. J. P. Mahaffy and J. G. Smyly. Our references are 
to Part III wherever texts previously published are reprinted there. 

Rev. Laws = Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus, by B. P. Grenfell, with 
an Introduction by the Rev. J. P. Mahaffy. 

P. Tebt. = The Tebtunis Papyri, Part I by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and 
J. G. Smyly (Part II by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and E. J. Goodspeed, 
in the press). 

P. Tor. = Papyri Graeci Regii Taurinensis Musei Aegyptii, by A. Peyron. 

Wilcken, Ost. = Griechische Ostraka, by U. Wilcken. 

P. Zois = Papiri Greco-Egizi di Zoide dell’ Imp. R. Museo di Vienna, by 
A. Peyron, re-edited in x2. Fahresb. ib. d. k. k. Franz-Foseph-Gyninasium 
in Wien by C. Wessely. 


IN February and March, 1902, while we were excavating in the Fayim, 
a dealer who had been travelling in Upper Egypt brought us a large quantity 
of broken papyrus-cartonnage, amongst which we noticed the presence of 
numerous literary fragments of the third century B.C, Our work in the 
Fayim was at that time drawing to an end, the available sites for the discovery 
of Ptolemaic papyri being exhausted, and we were naturally anxious to take 
at once the opportunity of finding Ptolemaic papyrus-cartonnage in a different 
district. With some difficulty we ascertained that the provenance of the papyri 
brought to us was Hibeh, on the east bank of the Nile between Benisuéf and 
Shékh Fadl (Cynopolis); and as the Director-general of Antiquities most 
obligingly gave us permission to proceed thither at once, we were able to start 
work on March 24. The excavations were carried on until April 11 (Arch. 
Report, 1901-2, pp. 4-5), and resumed in January, 1903, for nearly a month 
(Arch. Report, 1902-3, pp. 1-3). In February, 1903, after examining several 
sites between Hibeh and Shékh Fadl, we returned to Behnesa, which has 
occupied us for the last three and a half seasons. 

The ruins of the ancient town of Hibeh are situated on the river bank 
facing the villages of Feshn and Fent. The high desert at this point approaches 
the river edge, leaving only a narrow strip a few yards in width available for 
cultivation, and providing suitable places for quarrying limestone. The town 
was built on rising ground, which reaches its highest point at the north-west 
corner of the site. The most conspicuous feature is the massive wall of crude 
brick, some metres thick, which protects it from attack on the north and east sides, 
the east wall running in a south-westerly direction to meet the river, so that 
the area enclosed forms with the river a kind of acute-angled triangle. Stamped 
bricks with the names of the princess Estemkheb, her husband Menkheperré or 
their son Pinotem II, show that the walls were built under the XXIst Dynasty. 
Near the south end of the site stood a small temple (36 x 163 metres), built by 
Shishang and Osorkon of the XXIInd Dynasty, the picturesque ruins being 
now overgrown with palms. The principal entrance to the town was through 
the north wall, near its east corner ; west of the entrance the wall becomes more 
than usually strong as the ground rises to a peak, and it is probable that here 
was the citadel. The west face of this peak has been cut away for stone ; and 



it is not clear whether the wall was ever continued down to the river, which, 
moreover, has apparently encroached slightly upon the south end of the site, 
washing away the original south corner of the wall. Opposite the ruins, and 
separated only by a channel which becomes dry in the summer, is an island 
about 2 miles long, which was already there in early times, for it is mentioned 
in the demotic papyri from Hibeh of Darius’ reign (cf. p. 7). The modern 
village of El-Hibeh is a poor hamlet a few hundred yards to the south of the 
ruins, and is combined for administrative purposes with another village on the 
island which contains a few hundred feddans of cultivated ground, while on the 
main land there is practically none. The extensive necropolis of Hibeh lies round 
the ancient city to the north, east, and south of the walls, and dates from New 
Empire to Roman times. By far the greater part of it had been dug out 
before our arrival, principally in 1895-6, when, as report states, an Arab dealer 
from the Pyramids, known as Shékh Hassan, excavated the cemetery on a large 
scale. From the assertions of an inhabitant of Hibeh who was then employed 
as a reis, it appears that the dealer met with much success, especially in the 
discovery of scarabs, amulets, ushabtis, statuettes, faience and alabaster vases, 
and other objects such as would be found in the later tombs of the New Empire. 
Quantities of mummies of the Ptolemaic period with papyrus-cartonnage were 
also unearthed, but thrown away as worthless. This is the usual fate of 
cartonnage found in the Nile valley proper, where, except at one or two places, 
native tomb-diggers until quite recently attached no value to papyrus apart 
from large rolls. A handful of small fragments, however, found their way to 
Cairo, where they were bought by us in 1896; cf. p. 5. During the next few 
years much plundering continued at Hibeh, among the chief finds being a 
number of large demotic papyrus rolls, which were discovered together in a pot 
inside the town close to the east wall in the southern portion of the site. These 
were bought in Cairo by Lord Crawford, and having passed with the rest of his 
papyri into the possession of the Rylands Library are now being edited 
by Mr. F. LI. Griffith in the Demotic Papyri of the Fohn Rylands Library, 
pp. 38sqq. The site, especially the necropolis, had thus been thoroughly 
ransacked before Ahmed Bey Kamal in the year preceding our excavations was 
sent by the authorities of the Cairo Museum to investigate the place. His 
excavations, which lasted only a short time, produced no results of importance ; 
cf. his report in Annales du Service des Antiquités, ii. pp. 84-91. 

We had taken the precaution of bringing thirty workmen with us from the 
Faydm, and our anticipations that the local inhabitants would not be satisfactory 
were fully justified. The villagers of Hibeh, having hardly any land to cultivate, 
earn their living by antiquity-plundering or salt-digging in the neighbouring 


desert ; for regular work at the normal rate of wages they were not in the 
least disposed, while the inhabitants of the village on the island were not 
sufficiently intelligent to be of much use in the rather difficult task of clearing 
out the remains of a much plundered cemetery. We had no hesitation in deciding 
at which part of the necropolis to begin operations. The tomb which had 
produced the papyri brought to us in the Faytim was about 150 yards outside 
the town, in a rocky ridge which faced the north wall and ran from almost 
the river bank towards a square brick-walled enclosure near the north-east 
comer of the town; and the report of Shékh Hassan’s ex-rezs that wushdash 
warag (‘faces of paper, the Arabic term for papyrus-cartonnage) were to be 
found in this quarter was confirmed by the presence of many broken Ptolemaic 
mummies and limestone sarcophagi strewn about in the vicinity. The area 
bounded on the south by the town wall, on the north and north-east by the 
rocky ridge just mentioned, forms a triangular depression, of which the base is 
the margin of cultivation on the west, and the apex the brick enclosure on the 
east. The surface of the desert, which rises in an easterly direction, was to 
a large extent covered with loose debris, consisting partly of rubbish thrown out 
from the town between the time of its foundation in the XXIst Dynasty and 
the Ptolemaic period, with occasional accumulations of later date above the 
earlier mounds, partly of bricks which had fallen down from the wall or belonged 
to the buildings that had stood there before the Ptolemaic period, partly of 
limestone chips from the rock-tombs scooped out in the ridge to the north and 
underneath the wall itself, of which we shall speak presently. Throughout this 
debris at intervals were Ptolemaic burials, mostly in plain limestone sarcophagi, 
sometimes in rudely painted or plain wooden ones, rarely in pottery coffins, and 
occasionally without any sarcophagus at all. The bodies were mummified and 
generally ornamented with detachable cartonnage, either of cloth or papyrus, 
very similar in the style of decoration to the Faytim cartonnage. In many 
cases the Hibeh mummies are externally indistinguishable from those from 
the Fayfim; but in the Hibeh cartonnage the lower border of the head-pieces 
more commonly has a white band with a red check-pattern, and in the breast- 
pieces, though these are sometimes very large, the interstices between the figures 
or other objects painted have not infrequently been cut out, while foot-pieces 
are generally absent, but where found are of the larger kind and do not 
degenerate into the two small pieces of cartonnage attached to the soles which 
are so common in the Fayfim. The burials in the debris were very shallow, 
usually not more than two or three feet from the surface, occasionally only a few 
inches below it, though in some parts it was necessary to dig through six or 
seven feet of Roman rubbish to reach the Ptolemaic level. In the lower ground, 
B 2 


which had been much dug by sebakhin, near the river bank damp had proved 
fatal to the cartonnage, and even higher up the rise was often insufficient to 
protect the mummies from the moisture soaking through the soil from below, 
particularly when they had not been buried in the stone chips. In the process of 
digging through the rubbish of the late New Empire period to find the Ptolemaic 
sarcophagi, a few antiquities, such as scarabs and amulets, were found, and in 
the accumulations of the Roman period some small pieces of papyrus, none 
of which is later than the third century. In the Roman rubbish mounds and 
in some places in the earlier debris we also discovered a number of plain 
mummies very heavily draped, especially round the face, and tied with red 
bands. From the levels at which these were lying and the occurrence of 
similarly draped mummies in the neighbouring cemetery of Maghagha (Arch. 
Report, 1902-3, p. 3), it appears that this style of burial continued down to 
the sixth century, but most of the Hibeh examples were probably earlier; for 
in one spot near the west end of the rocky ridge, where a large number of these 
later burials had been made, we also found, not far from each other, two 
admirably preserved portrait-mummies similar to those discovered at Hawara 
and Rubayyat in the Fayim. One of these (a woman) is now in the Cairo 
Museum, the other (a man) in the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge. <A plain 
mummy found in the same group was inscribed Evéas IIvehoparos (érovs) 
Tpatavod Teprucxextis (a place-name ?), and the portraits too no doubt belong to 
the second century; cf. the authoritative discussion of the dating of the Fayim 
portraits by C. C. Edgar in Fourn. Hell. Stud. xxv. pp. 225-33. An inscription 
rudely carved on a block of limestone measuring 50 x 30 cm. records the death 
of | Oplolevedoudros "Atlwvos Toy a0 Kouns Pirovlkov (tor) y. 

The Ptolemaic burials in the depression between the rocky ridge and the 
north wall of the town were mainly those of the poorer classes; wealthier 
persons were buried in rock-tombs. Of these the south side of the rocky 
ridge contained a double row, one at the foot, the other a little higher up. 
They consisted of one or more low chambers scooped out of the rock where 
a convenient ledge projected, and generally had plain doors. The upper row 
of tombs had in places been altogether destroyed owing to stone-quarrying ; 
and nearly all the rest, as would be expected, had been plundered anciently, 
while many of them had been reopened in modern times, principally by Shékh 
Hassan, so that such cartonnage as we obtained from them was for the most 
part very fragmentary. A few untouched tombs, however, were discovered. 
One of these was in the west face of the corner of the ridge facing the 
cultivation, and contained four very large limestone sarcophagi with painted 
wooden coffins inside, containing early Ptolemaic mummies. The head-piece 


(of cloth) was detachable, but the other decorations were in accordance with 
the pre-Ptolemaic practice painted on the mummy. Another tomb had escaped 
the plunderer through being covered up by the debris of a house which had been 
built, probably at the same date as the town walls, on a depression between two 
peaks of the ridge. This contained eight painted wooden coffins and two of 
limestone, and in the debris itself numerous other mummies had been buried 
either with or without sarcophagi; many of these contained papyrus-cartonnage, 
except in one room of the house, which was filled up with mummies mostly 
ornamented with cloth head-pieces alone. 

The tomb which produced the papyri bought by us in the Fayim was one 
of the lower row of this group of rock-tombs. It had five chambers, of which 
four were said to have been opened by Shékh Hassan, while the fifth, which 
had been walled up, escaped detection until the beginning of 1902. This 
information fits in very well with the remarkable coincidence that some of the 
literary fragments from this tomb are actually parts of the same papyri as 
certain literary fragments bought by us in Cairo in 1896, and published in 
P. Grenf. II. Of the papyri in the present volume 4 belongs to P. Grenf. II. 1, 
5 to 8 (4), 11 to 6 (c), 20 to 3, 21 to 2, 22 to 4’; and there are numerous 
additional fragments of P. Grenf. II. 7 (6), which remain unpublished. It is 
clear that the mummies from which these literary fragments were derived had 
been originally discovered in 1896 in Shékh Hassan’s excavations, but that his 
workmen only took the trouble to remove a few small pieces, the remainder 
being left behind in the tomb until attention was redirected to it in 1902. The 
much damaged character of the cartonnage containing these literary fragments 
indicates that the mummies to which they belonged had been broken up 
anciently, probably in Roman times, while the comparatively well-preserved 
pieces of cartonnage bought with them no doubt came for the most part from 
the chamber which remained intact until 1go2. 

Opposite these two lines of rock-tombs were two other similar rows, 
excavated underneath the foundations of the city wall between the entrance and 
the north-west corner. These were also Ptolemaic, and had contained mummies 
with the usual cloth or papyrus cartonnage. The lower line of tombs at the 
foot of the rock on which the wall stands had been thoroughly plundered in 
Shékh Hassan’s time, but the upper line, placed in the ledge of desert on which 
the lower tier of the wall rested, had escaped notice because the entrances 
were covered over with the debris of bricks which had fallen down from above. 
These tombs had in every case been opened and sometimes re-used anciently, 

1 We are informed by M.S. de Ricci that in 1899 he identified a few additional fragments belonging to 
P. Grenf. II. 4 in the Heidelberg collection. It is to be hoped that these will soon be published. 


for not only were the mummies more or less broken up, but some scraps of 
Roman papyri were found in one tomb, and an inscription rudely scratched 
above the door of another, Taos “Aodo . Terex @(vros) Kvid(fov?) a... ., also 
probably dates from the Roman period. Some fairly well preserved pieces of 
cartonnage were nevertheless obtained ; and in one spot we found in a recess 
under the wall a group of twenty mummies, nineteen buried in stone sarco- 
phagi, one in a wooden one, of which fourteen contained papyrus-cartonnage. 
A passage led from this recess to a subterranean chamber filled with thin 
painted wooden sarcophagi, but the cartonnage of the mummies inside these 
was uniformly cloth. 

This series of rock-tombs came to an end at the town gate; underneath the 
remaining piece of the north wall and the outside of the whole of the east wall 
there were no suitable ledges under which to excavate chambers. A few 
isolated stone or wooden sarcophagi had been laid here and there against the wall, 
and there were numerous burials of the Roman period, but no papyrus-car- 
tonnage was found. The most important discovery here was an untouched 
tomb beneath a small brick building adjoining the east wall near its north 
corner. In the debris of this building were many inscribed bases of funerary 
statuettes and a wooden figure of Isis, probably of the Persian period. Below 
the floor of one of the rooms was a square shaft eight feet deep, leading to three 
rudely cut chambers in the rock, the chamber on the north being divided by 
a wall from one beyond. Here were found several sarcophagi, some of plain 
limestone shaped like a mummy, others of wood. The painting on the outside 
of the latter approximated in style to that on Ptolemaic coffins, but some 
of the sarcophagi were also painted inside, a rare phenomenon in the Ptolemaic 
period. Two well-preserved specimens of these were brought away; one, 
belonging to Khonsu-tef-Nekt, is now at Brussels, the other at Cairo. The 
mummies had no cartonnage and were bound in thick white wrappings. Some- 
times a network of small blue beads had been placed on the breast, but often 
the beads were merely painted on the cloth. The tomb also contained a set 
of four Canopic vases, a good-sized bronze statuette of Osiris, and numerous 
very coarse ushabtis. From the style of the sarcophagi and other objects it 
is clear that this burial belonged to one of the last two or three centuries 
before the Ptolemies. 

Near the north-east corner of the wall is, as has been said, a brick-walled 
enclosure measuring about 75x65 metres, of which a photograph is given in 
Petrie’s Methods and Aims of Archaeology, fig. 6. Report states that antiquities 
were found underneath the walls, a rumour which gains some confirmation from 
the circumstance that they have been extensively dug about in recent times. 


Within the enclosure is a natural hillock with several convenient ledges for 
placing rock-tombs, which have all been plundered. Ahmed Bey Kamal 
(Annales, ii. p. go) states that crocodile-mummies were found in them; but 
some at any rate of the burials were human. The tombs, like the sur- 
rounding wall, are no doubt anterior to the Ptolemaic period; and we con- 
jecture that they formed a private cemetery belonging to one of the chief 
‘families of Hibeh in its early days, being walled off for greater protection, 
like the enclosures to be found in many modern Egyptian cemeteries in the 

In the ground to the east of the town, along the path which leads to the 
modern village of Hibeh, are numerous rock-tombs under low ridges or shallow 
shafts leading to subterranean chambers. Previous diggings show that dogs 
and cats were buried in this part as well as human mummies, generally with- 
out sarcophagi, and rumour is probably correct in stating that no antiquities 
of value have been found there. Probably the tombs belong to the later 
Ptolemaic period. They are now being again used for burial purposes by the 
Copts. Further south beyond the town walls are more rock-tombs, chiefly in 
low hillocks along the margin of cultivation. Papyrus-cartonnage is reported 
to have been found here, but spoiled by damp; and other burials in stone 
sarcophagi laid only a few inches under the surface are also frequent in this 
quarter. No part of the south-eastern necropolis seemed promising for our 
purposes, and the only find of any interest was an elaborately decorated Ptolemaic 
mummy (now at Cairo) in a painted wooden sarcophagus inside another of heavy 

A few days were devoted to the investigation of the town ruins, where, 
except for the group of demotic papyri found in a pot (cf. p. 2), not much 
seems ever to have been discovered either by antiquity-seekers or by sebakhin, 
who visit Hibeh in large numbers during the summer. As we had expected, 
the mounds were not at all productive of papyri. In the northern part near 
the wall the houses were filled up with debris of bricks and contained no afsh, 
and the mounds further south near the river were far too much affected by damp 
to yield papyrus, even in the upper strata. A few houses on higher ground 
in the south-east quarter of the town had some a/fsh, but had already been 
much dug, and we found little save some second or third century fragments. 
Underneath the east wall on the inside was a series of funerary chambers cut 
in the rock, which had been plundered long ago. These were probably used 
by the pre-Ptolemaic inhabitants. 

That the old Egyptian name of Hibeh was Teuzoi in the Heracleopolite 
nome is known from the demotic papyri found there and now being edited by 


Mr. Griffith (Dem. Pap. of the Sohn Rylands Library, p. 40); but its name in 
Graeco-Roman times, during which it undoubtedly continued to be inhabited, 
remains undiscovered. Papyri from mummy-cartonnage give little help 
towards the identification of the site at which they happen to be found, since 
mummies were often carried a long distance to be buried in a particular place. 
Very few of the pieces of cartonnage found in the Hibeh cemetery are likely 
to have been manufactured at Hibeh itself, and from internal evidence it is clear 
that many of the mummies came from villages on the west bank in the 
Oxyrhynchite nome. It is, therefore, necessary to depend mainly on the 
evidence provided by the scanty papyri of the Roman period found in the town 
and by the statements of ancient geographers; the funerary inscription men- 
tioning the village @idovixov (cf. p. 4), which in Arch. Report, 1901-2, p. 5, we 
provisionally identified with Hibeh, may, like the cartonnage, have been brought 
from elsewhere, and is therefore not a sound basis for argument. 

The evidence of the Roman papyri is as follows, One petition was written 
by a person a70 xépns Pvxews Tod karo Keirov; a receipt mentions the kopapxat 
’Ayxupévev, and another document ’Acova tod Kwizov tod vinép Méugw |Hpa- 
kNeooAtrov (probably, cf. C. P. R. 6. 4, &c.; but rod imep Meppw might agree 
with Kolrov; cf. 95. 5 é ’Ovpdyxwv mode The brepe Méupjews). A taxing 
list of payments arranged according to villages mentions "Ayxupévwr, Purovetxov 
(cf. the funerary inscription, p. 4), Hepén, ‘Inmdvev, Taapdpov, Movxeas, Tarn, 
’Acotas, MovxwOan(_ ), Kepreonpews, KoBa, and ¥eBOoveyA(n) (cf. 33. 7). Probably 
all these villages were in the Kw/irns tomos; cf. 117, where Tadn and *Aoova occur 
in an account concerning villages in the Kwirns, and 112. On the verso of this 
papyrus is a long list of Heracleopolite villages including ’AAiAdeo!s), KoAacovx( ), 
[letay( ), S6BO(ews), Meerdpew(s), Teprovix( ), Movxew(s), Tooax( ), Tepovdle os, 
DeBelilx[ew]s, Tdoews, OcdAS6(rOews), Toxdews, Norpews, Opowdd(ews), PveBiews 
(corr. from eBeixews), Xévvews, Teevvis(ews), Kopa, Kpyjxews, Bovolepelws, 
Teprovan( ), Téx0ot, Opo'tlvay(i), Nioews, Swvapv. Several of these villages are 
already known from published papyri, e. g. 2601s, Meevauis, Nojpis, Gpowvax7, 
OQpowGOs, OeABGrO1s, ToxSis from C.P.R., PeBixes from P, Ambh. 147. 2, P.:Gen. 
10. 2, and P. Brit. Mus. 171 3d. 7, 8, where 1. ev PeAiix\et Tod Koirov (Keirou has 
already been suggested by Wilcken ; it can also be recognized in C. P. R. S2(a)eas 
where 1], Kotrov xdtw [rod im. Méud. ‘Apaxd.) for Kée rod xaro[répov v7. Mend. 
*Hpaxa.|) ; but most of the names are new. 

Combining the evidence of these Roman papyri with the frequent references 
to several of the same villages (e.g. PeSixis, Mepdn, KéBa, ’Aoova) in the early 
Ptolemaic papyri of the present volume, it is certain that Hibeh was situated in 
the Kwirns téxos of the Heracleopolite nome. This toparchy must therefore 


have comprised the south-east portion of the nome, where it adjoined the 
Cynopolite, the cemetery of Cynopolis itself being only twenty-five miles south 
of Hibeh. That the Kwirns, which was subdivided like many toparchies into 
a lower and upper division, included the whole of that part of the Heracleopolite 
nome which lay on the east bank is very likely, and it may even have extended to 
the southern portion of the Heracleopolite nome on the west bank. The references 
to it in the present volume, especially 78. 12-4, indicate that for some adminis- 
trative purposes it-was distinct from the rest of the Heracleopolite nome and 
almost treated as a nome itself, though owing to the absence of the Keirns from 
the two lists of nomes in Rev. Laws, it cannot have ranked officially as such. 
The name of the district Kwirns suggests that there was a town called Ké or 
Kéus which was its capital, and in fact the existence in this part of Egypt of a town 
called K6 or Kés is attested in the second century by Ptolemy, and in the fifth by 
Stephanus of Byzantium; cf. maps iv. and viii. of Parthey’s Zur Erdkunde des 
alten Aegyptens (Abh. d. k. Akad. in Berl., 1858). Both these authorities place 
K6 close to Cynopolis and on the west bank; Ptolemy’s statement (Geogr. 
iv. 5) is etra dpolws vouds KuvoroXirns kal pytpomodis amo bvopGv Tod ToTapod Ka... 
f) dvrixevtar év rH vjoy (sc. the island which was formed by the division of the Nile 
and contained the Heracleopolite nome) Kuvéy 7éAts. Miiller, however, suggests in 
his note ad Joc. that Ptolemy has created two separate towns out of the two 
ancient names of the capital of the Cynopolite nome, Pi-anup (‘city of Anubis, 
i.e. Kuvdy médts) and Ka-sa (Coptic Kais, the modern Kés near Benimazar). 
That Ptolemy’s K6, if it was the metropolis of the Cynopolite nome, is really 
Cynopolis under a different name is fairly certain; but in view of the new 
evidence for the existence of a toparchy called Kwérys in the vicinity of the 
Cynopolite nome, it is possible that there was a town called Ké or Kés in the 
south-eastern part of the Heracleopolite nome, and this Ké may have been 
confused by Ptolemy with Kais-Cynopolis. Papyri, however, provide no evidence 
for the existence of K«, and there are in any case no grounds for identifying it 
with Hibeh. 

Two other towns mentioned by ancient geographers have a claim to be 
considered as perhaps identical with Hibeh, ’Ayxvpov zodvs and ‘Inrover. 
’"Ayxupov modus, which is referred to in 67. 4, 112. 74, and 117. 15, as well as in 
two of the Roman papyri under the form ’Ayxupdrer (cf. p. 8), is placed by 
Ptolemy about midway between Aphroditopolis and Cynopolis, while Hibeh is 
only about 12 miles north of the point half-way between Atfih and Kes (Cyno- 
polis). Stephanus of Byzantium, on the other hand, places the town much 
further north in the same latitude as the Fayim; but the quarries at Hibeh 
(cf. p. 1) would well accord with his explanation of the name “Ayxupov TOALS 


(cf. Ptol. Geogr. iv. 5, ed. Miiller) ’Ayx. mA. @s ’Ad€bavipos ev y AlyuTTiaKay’ 
Ovopaotat be oUtws emELdn ALOivas ETEuvor ayKbpas ex THs Tapakeipéevys Aatowlas. The 
position assigned by the /tinerarium Antonini to Hipponon, midway between 
Aphroditopolis and Speos Artemidos, corresponds very well with the relation of 
Hibeh to Atfih and Benihasan, and the identification of Hibeh with Hipponon 
(which has already been proposed, mainly on account of the similarity of the 
names) would suit the fact that Hipponon was a military post of some impor- 
tance; cf. the Notitia Dignitatum, which shows that the ala Apriana was 
stationed there, and P. Amh. 142. 16, where 1. r]6 zpartocire 7[6\v kdotpav ‘Inrevev. 
The chief objection to this identification is the silence with regard to Hipponon 
not only of Ptolemy, but of the Ptolemaic papyri in the present volume, although 
so many villages of the Kwirns are mentioned. If the existence of ‘Ia7oévwr as 
a place of some importance in the Ptolemaic period is ever proved by new 
evidence, the probability of the identification with Hibeh would be greatly 
increased ; but in the meantime it must be regarded as very doubtful, and the 
grounds for identifying Hibeh with ’Ayxupév mods are quite as strong. So far 
as can be judged from the Ptolemaic papyri in this volume, the most important 
village of the Kwirns was PeBiyis, which seems to have been a kind of adminis- 
trative centre; cf. 106. 3 7d €u PeBiye AoyevTH prov Tod Kwirov. But the fact that 
PeBiyis is so often mentioned in the Hibeh papyri may well be due to a mere 
accident ; and in any case there is little justification for identifying it rather than 
any other village of the Kwirns with Hibeh, especially as the principal deity of 
PeBiyis appears from 72. 2 to have been Heracles, i.e. Hershef, the ram-headed 
god of Heracleopolis, while the principal deity worshipped at Hibeh in, at any 
rate, ancient Egyptian times was Ammon, as is shown both by the sculptures 
in the temple there and by the demotic papyri from Hibeh which Mr. Griffith 
is editing. 

The papyri published in the present volume consist partly of Hibeh 
papyri bought by us in the Fayim, partly of the papyri discovered in our 
first season’s excavations in March-April, 1902. These came either from 
the central depression or from the rock-tombs in the ridge to the north of it 
(cf. pp. 3-5). The cartonnage found in the second season’s excavations in 
January-February, 1903, which approximately equals in bulk that found in the 
preceding year, and was obtained either from other parts of the central depres- 
sion or from the rock-tombs under the town wall, has not yet been examined. 
The present volume by no means exhausts the first season’s results, though all 
the larger literary fragments and most of the better preserved documents have 
been included. There still remain numerous small literary fragments, some 
of which, if they can be fitted together, may turn out to be of value, and a 


certain quantity of non-literary documents, the publication of which is postponed 
for various reasons. Another selection, together with the Ptolemaic papyri 
found in the second excavations and the Roman papyri, will form the subject 
of a future volume. 

It was to be expected that cartonnage from an ordinary Graeco-Egyptian 
site in the Nile valley would prove to consist more largely of demotic papyri 
than cartonnage from the Fayaém, where the Greek element in the population 
was particularly strong. And though the papyri of the present volume show 
the presence of numerous Greek settlers in Middle Egypt outside the Faytim, 
the proportion of Greek to demotic in the Hibeh cartonnage is distinctly smaller 
than in that discovered by Flinders Petrie at Gurob and Hawara, and apparently 
smaller than in that found by Jouguet and Lefebvre at Magdola, though it is 
larger than in the cartonnage found by us at Tebtunis, the demotic papyri from 
which outnumber the Greek by two to one. In point of date the bulk of the 
Hibeh papyri cover the same period (from the middle of Philadelphus’ reign to 
the end of that of Euergetes I) as the bulk of the Petrie papyri: but the Petrie 
papyri contain a certain admixture of documents belonging to the reigns of 
Philopator, Epiphanes and even Philometor, and the oldest document in that 
collection is dated in the 16th year of Philadelphus (P. Petrie I. 24 (2)= 
III. 52 (4)), whereas the latest certain date yet discovered in the Hibeh papyri 
is the 25th year of Euergetes I (90; 7, 91, and 117 for palaeographical 
reasons may perhaps belong to the reign of Philopator) ; and there are not only 
several documents dated in the earlier part of Philadelphus’ reign (30, 97, 99, 
and 100), but a unique specimen of a Greek document dated in the reign of 
Soter (84 a). 

To know which papyri belonged to which mummy is often a matter of 
importance in determining the place where they were written, the identity of 
individuals with the same names, and the range of undated pieces, since the 
papyri from a particular mummy tend to form a group written in the same 
district, often concerning the same persons, and as a rule not widely separated 
in date; and in the case of a number of mummies found together, parts of the 
same papyrus are sometimes obtained from more than one of them. We there- 
fore append a classification of the papyri in the present volume arranged according 
to the mummies in the cartonnage of which they were found. The bought papyri, 
which all or nearly all came from a single tomb (cf. p. 5), are distinguished 
from the others by having A prefixed to their numbers, or, in the case of smaller 
fragments of cartonnage, by being called simply Mummy A. These numbers 
accompanying A refer not to the collective cartonnage of one mummy (as the 
numbers elsewhere of course do), since the different parts were not kept together 


by the native finders, but to the separate pieces from which several documents 
have been extracted. It may therefore occasionally happen that though two 
‘A’ papyri have different numbers, the same mummy was actually their source. 
Like the great majority of the papyri discovered in the excavations, the bought 
papyri were partly written in the Kw/rns romos of the Heracleopolite nome, 
partly in the Oxyrhynchite nome. From the presence of such a large quantity 
of literary fragments, it is clear that the papyrus used in making up the car- 
tonnage of several of the mummies (unfortunately those which have suffered 
most at the hands of plunderers, both ancient and modern) was obtained from 
a library of classical literature. It is not unlikely that this had belonged to one 
of the Greek settlers at Oxyrhynchus, a town at which, as its papyri of the 
Roman period show, Greek literature was particularly widely studied. The 
mummies from the first season’s excavations are distinguished by numbers only. 
Nos 62, 64-5, 67, 73-8, 101, 116, and 127 were found together, as were Nos. 79-100. 
Smaller groups of mummies from the same tomb are (a) Nos. 1og-12 and 121 ; 
(6) Nos. 68-72; (c) Nos. 118-20. 28, which was discovered in the debris outside 
the north wall, stands apart from the following list. 

An 2. 131: | No. 5. 81, 39, 84 (a)-(4), 97, 100-1, 
A. 4. 121, 134, 135. | 147-8. 
Aen e133: | No. 6. 30. 
A. 6. 95. | No. 10. 66-70 (4), 90, 103-4, 160-5. 
yey ea PP | No, 12. 116. 
A. 8. 57. | No. 13. 40-4, 85, 150-1. 
A. 9. 51-8, 56, 58-62, 93, 119, 124, | No. 18. 9, 63, 65, 94, 110, 157 9. 
166-8, and probably 37, 54-5, 125- , No. 25. 114. 
7, 130. No. 46. 118. 
A. 10. 6. | No. 63. 83. 
FiXee Gere p IP | No. 68. 27 (part). 
A See. | No. 69. 18 (part), 17, 27 (part), 34 
Bui t4., 32: | (part), 78 (part), 111. 
A. 15. 36, 75, 105 -7, 136-44, No. 70. 18 (part), 34 (part), 73 (part). 
A. 16. 45-50, 108. | No. 83. 89, 109. 
A. 17. 88, 96, 99, 128. | No. 84. 115. 
A. 1-5, 7, 8, 10-2, 14-6, 18-22, 24-6, | No. 87. 79. 

33, 35, 38, 74, 76-7, 86, 91, 102, 112, | No. 97. 28-9, 64, 92, 146. 

117-8, 120, 122-3, 129, 132, 145, 149, | No. 98. 81-2, 152. 

171. No, 117. 80, 98, 153-6. 
No. 126. 87. 


1. EpicHarmus, Ivopat. 

Mummy A. 16.9 X 14 cm. Circa B.c. 280-240, Pate I. 

THIS is an introduction in trochaic tetrameters to a gnomic poem (I. 11), 
for which the authorship of Epicharmus is expressly claimed in 1. 13. The 
T'yéua of Epicharmus were popular at an early period, and quotations from these 
gnomic verses are found in Xenophon (Mem. ii. 1. 20) and Aristotle (Rez. ii. 21. 
1394 6, 13). But there were doubts even in ancient times regarding their 
authenticity, and according to Philochorus the collection was the work of 
a certain Axiopistus ; cf. Apollodorus, ag. Athen. xiv. 648d @urdxopos 8 & Trois 
Mept pavtixfs A€wWaoroy tov cite Aoxpov yevos etre Suxvdyiov Tov Kavova xal tas Tyepas 
nemoinxevat pnotv. Following this criticism recent editors (Kaibel, Com. Gr. Fr. 
i. pp. 133 sqq., Diels, Vorsokratiker, pp. 91 sqq.) class this section of the 
fragments among the wevdemrxdppera, although it is acknowledged to include 
some genuine elements. What Axiopistus seems to have done is to have edited 
in the poet’s name a number of floating extracts from the comedies of Epicharmus, 
with additions from other sources; and the contents of our papyrus may be 
recognized as part of his preface to the work. Diels supposes that Axiopistus 
lived in the fourth century, perhaps in the circle of Heraclides Ponticus; the 
papyrus (provided that Philochorus was correct, and that Axiopistus was the 
author) shows that he must have lived at least as early as B.C. 300, since its own date 
cannot be later than about B. C. 250, and should probably be placed earlier in the 
reign of Philadelphus. It is written in finely formed upright uncials, and shows 
to the best advantage a common literary hand of this period. The 7 with its 
broad and carefully finished crossbar is a noticeable feature. 


In this, as in the other new classical fragments, many of the restorations of 
lacunae and suggestions in the commentary are due to Professor Blass. 

Ted everTl TOAAG Kal Tav|T\oLla Tols Xpyoao Ka 
mote gidov mor €xOpov ev dikat Neyov ev aAtou 
moTt Tovnpov moTt KaAov Te Kayabov mote fevov 
mot. Svonplv moTt mapolvoy mots Bavavooy ElTE TLS 


ev de Kat yvopar copar Tede ator ¢|¢] metOoiTo TLS 
Segiwrepos TE K ein BeATLOV T ES talvjr avnp 
[kolv TL moda det Aey[eliy GAA EM povoy [Tlour@y eros 
MOTTO Tpay Ua rroripepovTa Tovd act] TO cuppepov 
10 altiay yap nxov ws addws pev etny [dleros 
paxpodoyos 6 ov ka dvvaipav ep Biplaxee yvopals Neylew 
ravta 6n yov etoakovoas ovvT/Onpe Tay TEXvav 
ravd ofmlws eumne te Emxappos cogos tis eyevero 
[7oAA os ellm aoTELa Kal TavTOLa kaQ ev [eros] Aeyor | 
1x [metpav] avravrov didovs ws Kat Bipax 
... Je pabov amas avnp par| 
. 2. .] . noel mot ovdey eros an 

erase Jovra Aumnoe TL ToYd| 

[ . 
(ae ee \rpl. Ja Spovra rod) 
20 [.. eee eee es elopnre modvpabn| 

.. -jorf. .Jpz7[. -Jepwo de Kae 7] 

.. 2. je mavra de tad ws ¢ 

Suasaceaes . ejreita 8 ev Kalpa A€y 

Geek eee .. Jetua Bpaxvool 


1-13. ‘Here are phrases many and various for you to use on friend or foe, when 
speaking in court or in the assembly, on a rascal, on a gentleman, on a stranger, a bully, 
a drunkard, or a boor, or if any one has other bad qualities for these too here are goads ; 
here also are wise maxims, obedience to which will make a man cleverer and better in 
all things. A man has no need for many words, but only just one of these verses, bringing 


to bear upon the matter in hand that verse which meets the case. For the reproach was 
made against me that, though I was clever in other ways, I was prolix and could not utter 
maxims tersely ; so on hearing that I composed this work of art in order that men may say 
“Epicharmus was a wise man who put many witty sayings of every kind into single verses, 
giving proof of his talent for terse. . .”’ 

4. etre: aire is the correct dialectical form. 

5. evs was a Doric and Aeolic form of éveort; cf. Anecd. Ox. i. 160. 26 e&o pia mapa 
Awpietow dyti rod eéeatw, 176. 12 (ev) mapa thy Aiodida Kai Awpida diadexrov évd yiverat, Omdrav 
kal dytt prpatos. 

II. paxpodoyos 5: SC. or. 

13. 1. ms for re Cf. Epich. #r. 254 (Kaibel) rav epav prapa rox’ éeaceirar doyov 

20. There would be room for a quite narrow letter like « between lop and ». 

22. An alteration has been made in this line, possibly by a second hand; the letters 
ya are much smaller than usual and ts of rovros are added above them. There are also 
traces of ink below ur which may represent part of the original writing, and perhaps all the 
letters between |r and xaxaj are in an erasure. 

23. [yleynGe: the dialect requires yeyaée. 

2. EpicHARMUS (?), Ivopat. 

Mummy A. Fr. (2) 9X 9:2 cm. Circa B.c. 280-240. 

Four fragments from a trochaic poem, apparently of a gnomic character, 
and quite possibly coming from a later part of the work of which 1 is the 
preface. The MS. however is certainly not the same; the calligraphic hand 
is similar in some respects to that of 1, but the letters are larger and more 
widely spaced, and in some cases the formation is different. In the second 
column of Fr. (c), where the beginnings of a few lines are preserved, the verses 
are divided off by paragraphi, indicating that they were povdortixo, each 
complete in itself. The only alternative would be to suppose that those lines 
were part of a dialogue, which is here much less probable. A curious 
approximation occurs in 1. 6 to a verse attributed to Epicharmus by Stobaeus 
(Kaibel, Fr. 258) 6 rpdmos avOpdroicr daluwv dyads, ois b€ kal xaxds. The papyrus 
has evtpotos avOpwrotct daiywwv, apparently in the same position of the verse 
(cf. note ad /oc.), but the letter following daimev is not a; probably, therefore, 
evtpomos is not a mistake and the line ended quite differently. This verbal 
coincidence is therefore an insufficient argument for assigning the fragments to 
the ['yéyar of Epicharmus ; it is moreover to be observed that they fail to show 
the Doric dialect appropriate to that work (cf. 1. 5 anéns, 1. 8 e€nzarnxev). The 


objection, however, is inconclusive, for dialect is frequently obscured (cf. notes on 
1.4 and 23); and, apart from Epicharmus, we are at a loss for an author of yrépac 
pordatixot in trochaic tetrameters. On the verso are the remains of a cursive 

Fr. (a). Fr. (0). 
Se Jote mpos of JrAgi 
SU tetsu eae Jodvored. . « |e[ \ 2 Emel 
Fees ] core xpnor[.] - |. «lev ] Scpamj 
] eixadutreras to pavdov | 15 vogrer| 
5 ] els To ouvTvxey andns eorivol \deoev rr 
] evtporos avOpwrotct Satpov trl ].€9 o7e, 
... J. ot Kat opbws BpaBevoat dave ee 
_ .wous e€nmatnKey adikos olf 
wee]. . €OLS TOVNPAa TEpL Tovnpaly 
KOA. Sarees ene Teale salesac elvis ene ab ee otmn eal 
ee hd Res eee ae ]. alonp avd 
Fr. (c). (Col. 1. Col. ii. Pira(@): 
|nv on 26 | avtw@ m/ 
jos ou[ Jos haval 
2071 pal rel 
| og] IN an 
25 6G 

4-6. The three initial epsilons are in a vertical straight line, and it therefore seems 
practically certain that they are the first letters of the verses ; for although, so far as the 
metre goes, the first foot in each might be the third of the verse, it is most unlikely that the 
two preceding feet would have occupied exactly the same space in three consecutive lines. 
Of the first € of exxadvmrerat only a small speck of the base remains, but this suits «; the 
letter following appears to be ». not z. The cyclic dactyl at the beginning of |. 6 is very 


3. Sopnocies, Zyro (?). 

Mummy A. Fr. (c) 9-9x11-4cm. Circa B.c. 280-240. Prare II (Frs. 4 and /). 

A number of fragments containing tragic iambics, but in very bad condition. 
This is largely due to the fact that the breast-piece from which they are derived, 
instead of being left in a solid sheet, was, according to a not uncommon fashion, 
cut into an open-work pattern, causing large gaps, and rendering the remainder 
much more fragile than it would otherwise have been. The pattern has assisted 
us in assigning their position to a few of the pieces, but the others remain 
unplaced and the total result is disappointing. This is the more regrettable 
since it appears not improbable that, as Prof. Blass has suggested, the play in 
question is the Zyro of Sophocles. Tyro was the mother of twin sons, Pelias 
and Neleus, by Poseidon, and was persecuted by her step-mother Sidero, who 
was eventually killed by Pelias. In 1. 39 of the new fragments there is 
a mention of the river Alpheus, which is in keeping with the fact that the 
adoptive country of Tyro’s father, Salmoneus, was Elis. Indeed, Elis may well 
have been the scene of one of the two dramas written by Sophocles on the 
subject of Tyro. The extant fragments from the two plays amount only to 
twenty-seven lines, so that the absence of a verbal coincidence with our bare 
sixty is not at all remarkable. But allusions to the same circumstances are 
perhaps to be recognized. There is more than one reference in the papyrus 
to bad dreams, e.g. 1. 37 [polBos tus avrnv dea t evvexop mravat ; Cf. 1. 9. Ltnis 
remarkable that in the extant fragments similar references are found:—Fr. 580 
Tpootivar peony tpareCav dpi oita xal Kxapxrjova, where the subject (according 
to Athenaeus) was rods dpdxovras, and a dream is apparently meant; cf. Fr. 581 
TOAN év Kakotor Ovuos edyndels épa, and Fr. 584 tikrovor yap To. kat vocovs dvoOupiar. 
A still stronger argument for the identification proposed is supplied by Il. 52-3 

. as (?) apwyov matepa Aioopalt podew? avlaxta wovtov pytpt. This prayer 
is entirely appropriate in the mouth of one of the sons of Tyro, and, if avaxra 
is right, must be addressed to Poseidon. Moreover it is just possible, though very 
hazardous (see note ad /oc.), to read the mutilated word before apwyor as [Ile as, 
which would of course be decisive. But even if that supplement be not adopted, 
the case for the Zyro may be considered fairly strong. A consideration of the 
style and diction does not materially assist in forming a conclusion, but they 
are at least consistent with a Sophoclean authorship. 

The text is written in a small and not very clear hand, the decipherment of 
which is rendered difficult by a coat of plaster and brown stains. A peculiar 



feature is the occasional indentation of the lines, apparently to indicate alterna- 
tions in the dialogue (cf. 1. 23, note). This expedient is sometimes employed 
in papyri to distinguish quotations (e.g. P. Oxy. 200) or fresh sections (P. Oxy. 
665), but we are not aware of another instance of its use for dramatic purposes. 

Frs. (a), (0), and (c). 
Fr, (a). Lo |Topes 
le Xpop amav 


about 4 lines lost. 

Brii(@): |fooar, 
leua vuKTEpos 
10 Juev ovd av evs €AOor TEAaS 
|. varov depas 
|. U TroTpos 


Fr: (c) rer 
15 | maéos 

Ju pevov 
] mlolpavve 

Frs. (a) and (c). 

Col. ii. 
[ t4 letters jrov xapw goBoupiely . [ 
(sake nu stots ett ‘AAots ous ev. .| TeTayplElva 
20 arrow ean pn Bpal..... |. mes Aoyors 
opais y apa w dcomowa........ ]. para 
OTELXELVY OTpUVE| 15 letters ] 
. .jpet Ovpwvos ef. |7[ 17 oh, | 
QUQOY AKOVTAL TAl..- 25s «6s Jevo, 
25 TV. €VTOS OLKOY 7) J\OK[. 4 « is 5 

evvous d€ kat Taad etoopats tev OnTpLias 


OPO! Tetsee a Joa... . pnte mnparte 
INE 6 Sec cbt jugovoayv adyewor tral 
[ 18 letters vy ap povoy de 
ae |) i ae Jv Te Kat Kakoi 
KOU orgs Pie cs oa 1. ovws Toooy | 

et kat Oavety xpn mpwrov exmpalé 

[.] . aout]. .'v7 avrov ev gepor' 

fixeueeee or |uee wD Kevou x 
Fr. (d). Col. i. 
35 [+ «Je - vd) 
Pelin@s: Napier ans ml a: lesa 
[po\Bos zis avrnv dea 7 evvvxop mdravat 
(ener eetenncs |. vo ev tele kotvover Tade 
oreo co Sel Soars kaA\Atpouv em AXdetov Tropov 
40 [ 24 letters ].. yavos 
Col. ii. 
May yap ng .[ 
7 a&dX €k Kakov ev{ 
ahA w Texvoy {. .Ju. | 
Kougas pepe eyaid er; 
Ng egos Weis aoe n dearrol 
Bite (2): : : ° 
]- x 
] Kakat ov yvnoul 
] ayav oduppal 
]Oov rpvxee 7 
50 iPosCuleel ass 

Fr. (7). ; ; : : : 

[ ]. + @ow at peror| 

[...]. @$ apwyov matepa Atooopar pode 
[avjakTa@ movTov pytpt THS TELAl 

[..].v7a madas emep |.)x| 

. . . . 

BO ail syeoemene ons JeveTos ovk eveg| 
7 Geol.uva . er evder oe Kupt. « [ 
ENURTOlal Wore [och sae eo oPUNOS EA 
vea Tpog . | 
CT ie el 

1 sqq. The position of Frs. (a) and (4), which contain Il. 1-2 and 8-12, is suggested 
by the appearance of the papyrus, but is not at all secure. Fr. (a) also contains the first 
five letters of 1. 20, which do not fit the context there particularly well; neither is it certain 
that 1. 1 is the first of the column. In Fr. (4) (Il. 8-12) there is a junction of two sheets 
of papyrus. Hence, if this fragment is rightly placed here, the first column of Fr. (d) and 
Frs. (/) and (g), which show no similar junction, cannot be referred to the same column. 
A junction occurs in the second column of Fr. (¢) just before it breaks off, but this comes 
earlier in the verse than is the case in Il, 8-12. 

20. Cf. the previous note. 

23. This line will be metrical if it is supposed to have projected slightly to the left, as 
is the case with ll. 26 and 41. The purpose was probably to indicate a change of speaker ; 
cf, Il. 26-7, which are evidently a question and answer. ‘The syllable ev in ]. 26 is indeed 
written rather below the level of the rest of the line, and may have been added later; but 
since the hand is identical, and other lengthened lines occur, it is unlikely that this is merely 
a case of accidental omission. 

26, mevOnrprlas (cf. Eurip. Hzppol. 805) refers to the Chorus ; the supplement is a trifle 
long for the space, but is just possible. 

33: There is a gap in the papyrus before this line, which may therefore have had two 
or three more letters at the beginning than we have supposed ; cf. |. 23, note. 

44. The e of eyoid is very doubtful; there may be nothing between the » and 6. For 
coupes pepew Cf. e.g. Eurip. J/ed. 1018 xotghas pépery xpy Ovntov ovta oupopas. 

48. Perhaps rev or ros| ayav odvppalty or -ow. This fragment probably gives the 
latter halves of the lines. 

52. Apart from any context the traces on the papyrus before apwyoy would most suitably 
represent a rather wide . But is excessively awkward at this point, and we accordingly 
prefer the possible though not very satisfactory alternative as, preceded by a letter which 
conceivably might be anc, though if so the three letters were crowded together in an unusual 
manner. Blass’s ingenious suggestion [eA as may, therefore, just be read, and it admirably 
fits both lacuna and context. The palaeographical difficulty, however, has made us 
hesitate to introduce it in the text. 


54. The first word is probably a participle. 

56. The first letter after the lacuna is really more like o than v, but if these verses are 
iambics the second foot of |. 56 must be a tribrach. 

547. The « at the beginning of the verse projects slightly beyond the lines above and 
below, and a narrow letter might be lost in a hole in the papyrus before «. So perhaps 
this line should be classed with 1. 23, &c. (cf. note ad /oc.). (I |edcas does not seem a possible 

4. EvuRIpIpEs, Oemeus (?). 

Mummy A. Fr. (a2) 6x11311em. Circa B.c. 300-280. Prats I (Frs. a and c). 

The very archaic and delicate handwriting of these fragments of tragedy is 
obviously the same as that of the three small pieces previously published by us 
in P. Grenf. II. 1 (cf. the facsimiles), and there can be no doubt that they are 
all derived from a single MS.; cf. p. 5. Concerning the identity of the 
author there was previously no evidence, but a clue is now provided by the 
occurrence at |. 5 of the words adjeddio|: MeAlelaypwr, which suggest that 
the drama may be the J/eleager or the Oeneus of Euripides. The context makes 
the latter the more probable. The verses in Fr. (a), Col. i. (Il. 1-9; cf. Blass’s 
reconstruction in the note ad Joc.) would suitably form part of a speech by 
Diomedes, who after the successful expedition of the Epigoni against Thebes 
went to Aetolia to avenge Oeneus, his grandfather. Oeneus was the king of 
-Calydon, and had been dispossessed by his nephews, the sons of Agrius; 
Diomedes killed the usurpers and restored Oeneus (cf. the t7é@eo1s in Schol. 
ad Aristoph. Acharn. 418). Meleager, the uncle of Diomedes, is assumed by 
the speaker in ll. 5 sqq. to be dead, but his grave is to be honoured by some 
of the spoils from Thebes. A certain similarity in sense may further be 
detected, as Blass suggests, between Il. 22 sqq. and Oeneus Fr. 569 (Nauck), 
quoted in the note ad /oc. The suggestion of O. Rossbach (Lerl. Phil. Woch. 
1899, p. 1630) that the fragments published in 1897 came from the Crryses 
of Sophocles is not to be reconciled with the new evidence. 

This papyrus along with 6 and 9, the Petrie fragment of the Adventures 
of Heracles (P. Petrie II. 49 (f) ; cf. I. p. 65), and the Timotheus papyrus are the 
oldest specimens of Greek literary writing that have been recovered. There 
seem to be no sufficient grounds for assigning the Timotheus to an appreciably 
more remote period than the rest. The archaeological evidence is inconclusive, 
and if the archaic appearance of the letters is more striking than in other cases, 
that is to no small extent due to their size and comparative coarseness. The 
argument from single characters is no doubt precarious; but the forms of = 


in 4 and 2 in 6 and 9 are more distinctly epigraphic than in the Timotheus 
papyrus. We should therefore include it in the group named, and refer all five 
. papyri approximately to the reign of Soter (B.C. 305-284). The other literary 
pieces in this volume most probably belong, like the dated documents found 
with them, to the reign of Philadelphus (B.C. 284-246), or to the earlier years of 
the reign of Euergetes I (B.C. 246-221), mainly to the former. 

For convenience of reference we add a revised text of the fragments 
published in 1897. 

Fr. (a). Coln: 

olonpov fh .(c-. ss =.= jres gover 10 
\w avegor[.....]. [. .]ee 
]s yap Tov «joy Aoywy exeLs 
Jee mpakw [olppnow mode 

Col. ii. 
Tl TOT ap akKovoat Tpo, 
ws exmemAn{ yp 
evey TLY| 

ogov Taxos Ki 

5 adleddia Medfelaypar d[wp|nuara de. . |vel 
Jat kat arromAnpwOnt tados i =| 
\vov Twy KekadXLoTEVpE| EVoO|Y Tiva . [ 
jevors avdpaci [ : 


Fr. (0). 

QEQLOS (OY ote eal lal 

ov pavOavwm aov Tov doyoy 

adX ws cuvnoets paidios eyo dipacw 

ZO SEMEL) YAP NN reel cn co evomeael eens ip} 
Pira(c): Fr. (d). 
dvjompagias ‘olmws |ylevn7iat 

jv tAnpoveyv Bpote v 
‘vy teOvnko[T\a 
25 ev fovTtay didev 
eluvous €L0L 

| plo’ wAnpns de oray 

Tuxnt 6 ayor{ 
womTEep TUp aly 
5 Xopov plea 
ocov Tapaypioly [ 
Wuyaiw epi 



| Kakols 
30 pajos Prerret 

Fr. (e). 

\ea[-Jam . | 
45 \eTat Xpovols 
|s yeyos 



Bie) —. Grenf. II. 1 (a). 1. 

jayovta yap | 
WAL]. w oe pavre 
55 alvépes w ppevoBraBers 
POleipovotv ws Kako pe ya 
] exmodwow ndovns 

| mpos oe de€tas xepos 
Te peer : 

ra(2)=P. Grenf. Il. 1 (2): 

|e KAvov 
65 peya obevet 

eyo yar. -jo- [ 

40 TLS earl Of 
jolxrer . | 
(. loo Buf 

Fr. (2)=P. Grenf. II. 1 (@). 2. 

60 |meTAnp, 




le Bel 
lAerau 75 Te 
| [ 
To ava|KTopov | 
jozny TLy| 
lesey Tapes | os 

1-2. The reference is probably to the capture of Thebes. 
3-8, Blass proposes the following restoration of these lines: 
viv ovy, Teo|s yap tay enav Oyo Exes, 
ep’ fv mpoonkle mpagw dppnow modk, 
[as marpadl@ Mededypo 8\ wp \jpara 
(pOird mpobdp\a, xdromdnpwOy Taos 
‘mdvtov ékel|vav Toy Kexad\toTevpevor 
|G roioe KAlewois dvdpacw |veipar mpemec. 
For S\ep\jpara cf. Orest. 123 veprépov Swpnuara, and for xexaddcorevpevoy in the middle voice 
see Med. 947 dap’ d kaddoreverat Tov viv ev avOporotow, adeAod MeXedypou occurs in the same 
position of the verse in Supp/. 904. 
10. Perhaps zpo oSexapeb’, with éxmerdn/ yped” in the next line. 
15. The marks in the margin, two horizontal strokes and a comma-shaped sign below, 
perhaps indicate the close of a scene; cf. 1. 35. 
16. This line is on a small detached strip; its position here is only suggested by the 
appearance of the papyrus and is not at all certain. 
21. This line was the last of the column. 
22 sqq. The speaker is probably Oeneus and the sense of the passage seems to have 
been similar to that in Oeneus Fr. 569 (Nauck) : 
AI, od & &8 épjyos Evpudyor andddAvaeat ; 
Ol. of péev yap ovkér’ eiolv, of 8 dvres Kako. 
1, 22 is perhaps the first of a column; Il. 1, 10, 32, and 60 certainly are so. 
35. The letters of this heading, no doubt a stage-direction, are rather spaced out. If 
yea is right the play had a female Chorus. 

5. PHILEMON (?). 

Mummy A. Fr. (a) 10-4 24:5¢cm. Circa B.c. 280-240. Prate III (Fr. a, Cols. ii-iii). 

It has been the subject of much speculation upon what Greek original the 
Aulularia of Plautus was based. Plays of Poseidippus and, of course, Menander 
have been suggested, but with little plausibility, and the general verdict has been 
that of not proven. Happily a small portion of the original comedy now appears 
to have come to light in the fragments below, which belong to the same 


MS. as P. Grenf. II. 8 (4), and the author of which Blass has identified with 
great probability as Philemon. This identification rests upon the occurrence 
at 1. 28 of the name Kpoicw: in the same position of the verse as in a quotation 
from Philemon in Eustath. ad Hom. p. 1701. 6 ra Tavtadov radavta, érel trOVoLdS 
TOTE iV, ws Sndrol, pact, Pirjpov eizdv' Kpolow AaAG oor kal Mida xal Tavtddrdw 
(Kock, Fr. 189). This argument is really stronger than it may seem 
at first sight to be: for there is apparently no other reference to Croesus 
in the extant remains of Attic comedy. Moreover the line fits in well with 
the supposed situation, the key to which is provided by the name Strobilus 
in ll, 20-1. In the Am/wlaria Strobilus is the slave who discovers and carries off 
the treasure concealed by the old miser Euclio, and so brings about the desired 
union of his master Lyconides with Euclio’s daughter. We suppose that the 
discovery has just preceded the scene disclosed in Il. 13 sqq. of the papyrus. 
The slave Strobilus (1. 21 mau... =7¢p)oBiAe) is almost beside himself with delight 
(Il. 15-19, 22), and is anxious to get away with the utmost speed (Il. 13-14) ; while 
the interlocutor, who arrives on the scene and is presumably his master, is 
astonished at Strobilus’ behaviour (1. 15), and thinks that he must have gone mad 
(Il. 21 wat dvorvyes). This interpretation is strengthened by some other coinci- 
dences. An echo of the line Kpoiom AadG oor k.t.A. may be recognized, as Blass 
points out, in Aw/. 702-4 zstos reges ceteros Memorare nolo, hominum mendicabula. 
Ego sum ille rex Philippus. WL. 58 evs malrnp (?) suggests Awl. 781 filiam ex te 
tu habes. Further, the fragments published in our Greek Papyri II. 8 (8), of 
which we append a revised text, undoubtedly belong to the same MS., and there 
too, in spite of much obscurity, are phrases which harmonize with the plot of the 
Aulularia. The anxiety of Lyconides to marry Euclio’s daughter is aptly expressed 
in 1.77 ev dvvatoy ett THs Kopys avrw. TvXEL, and TeKxew two lines above is quite 
in keeping with the situation in the Plautine play (cf. Aw/. 691 sqq., &c.). Lines 
79-80 evpor otxiay advvatoy nv (to enter?) may well refer to the house of the miser 
Euclio, which he kept carefully shut up; cf. Awl. 98-9 Profecto in aedis meas 
me absente neminem Volo intromitti, and 274 aedis occlude. The mention of 
a nomarch (1. 81), who was an Egyptian but not an Athenian official, suggests 
that the scene was laid at Alexandria, where Philemon is thought to have spent 
some time on the invitation of Ptolemy Soter ; cf. Alciphr. Zfvs¢. ii. 3-4. If so, 
Plautus did not here follow his original, for the scene of the Az/w/arza is certainly 
mxthens:; cf. 1. 810. 

The text is written in a good-sized cursive hand which is not easy to read 
where the letters are incomplete ; it may date from the reign of either Phil- 
adelphus or Euergetes. Alternations of the dialogue are marked by paragraphi, 
and where a line is divided between two speakers the point of division is marked 


by a short blank space. On the verso of Fr. (a) are three lines in a different 
hand giving explanation of words: 
OGoS AlpHosy elie [eretet = Ori ail 
Aapmpos Ta ToAEpult|K[a TE 
Cever Baer. 
At some distance to the right of this are the beginnings of lines of another 
column in the same hand, and perhaps of the same character. 

|. vp... € 
]. Ts Taxa 
5s Kade 
evar tive 
| tnv odor 
wat xatperv Boar 
ike) | pot move 
} + § 


Col. ii. 
volmilve GAL... ee Tpexey Odrvptrea 
eav diadvy[n|s evtuxns avOpwiros € 

15.@ Hpakdrers te mor efalre To yeyernpevoy 

pov 08 axpiBos Siote THs o1Kovperns 
Lepa cahws uvtn oTW n X@pa porn 
kavOade Katloliknoac. mavres ot Beot 
Kal vuy eT elo Kal yeyovaocw evOade 

20 YrpoBire 
mat Svotuxes BroBiie tis kek[An]xe pLE 


AmodXov Kat Oeot Tov mvEevpaTos 

eyo ov 6 et TL @ KpatioTe Tov Oew'y 

ws els KaAlov] o copalkja 7is[.].-[-. +e eee 

goo, baba ete awe ae easel 


Col. iii. 

Kpowofor Aadrw oor kat Midar kat Tavtadror 

30 aut} 





35 epos d| 
mie). Col: i. Col. ii. 
[. -] . povol 
++ Lleaxel 
. Ov 40 @ piATalt 
Trois OuK « . [ 
ovOey ToLoulT 
-w de mis pf 
“ikjavnos 2." Be «| 
45 [. .|0[ 
Pr. 1(c): Colei: Collar: 
].. ma 55 eyo yap [ 
€loTL poe atro| 
Jos Kayw TL gol cup . [ 
|. @va mpos {O\ewr egus tral 

50 |upev avOpwrov ata . 
]. Pilg... .[.... 
] Tpoptpoy [..... 

|. av. [.Jov 

Fr. (é). 
60 Jrof 66 java . [ 
] - Topi jovaerl 
Aecoz7[ le Tes nov of 
leraca[ lov nas ma . 

65 ylupvoy 


emijreOvpnkev €o| 

eles oles | 

Fr. (g) =P. Grenf. II. 8 (6). 

Col. i. Col. ii. 
75 [.|AaTns pe..[.] wavTa pere..... TEKELY atay| 
OKOTELY Mpooleval Tact TE. AN..... €«- 85 av7| 
€. Ovvatov €oTL TNS KOpNs avT@ TUXELY mpoor [ 
OTL TNS avolas pegTosS NY TH.....Y Bh oc | 
80 advvarov nv ....... Shahin ehioueaeas: (onkert 

auTnv vouapy| 
ev (ndoTtuTi| at 

Tp + [ 
Feo (Z) =P Grenis 11. 8 (0): 

elvOus ovddaBns pas = TL ~—sTTUp 


go |me vikats ayabos etls] Tnv EdXada 

eaelane: uf 

croynoa ma. . avocder . . | 

|. § puxpovs go.. p edpodd| 
vadXcd . aou . Torey 

13-23. ‘ S/robrlus. Imagine that you are running Olympia! If you make your 
escape you are a lucky fellow! Lyconides. O Heracles, what ever can have happened ? 
Strob. Now I know certainly that of all the world this spot alone is clearly sacred, and 
here all the gods have made their home and still are, and here have they been born. Lye. 
Strobilus! .S/rod. Apollo and the gods, what breath! Zyc. You miserable slave, Strobilus ! 
Strob. Who called me? Lyc. I. Sérod. And who are you, most mighty of the Gods? 

Lyc. How fortunately I have seen you.’ 

13-4. ade... suggests ad(e)urrov, which is palaeographically possible, but would occupy 
all the space before tpexew and so leave a syllable missing. Perhaps {67} has dropped 
out; but with the reading so uncertain this can hardly be considered a satisfactory 
hypothesis. Strobilus is apostrophizing himself. 

18, katoknoaoe Without rots is unsatisfactory. ]. kat@txnkace, 

20. mvevuaros may refer either to the loudness of Lyconides’ shout, or, as Dr. Mahafty 
suggests, to the supposed effluence of an approaching god; cf. e.g. Eur. Hippol. 1392 
Oeiov dduns mvevpa, 

21. |. SrpoBire. 

22, trav eww: Strobilus keeps up the idea of Il. 16 sqq., and affects to think that his 
master is a divine apparition. 


23. The restoration is due to Prof, Leo,—who does not accept the attribution of these 
fragments to Philemon or their supposed connexion with the Audu/aria. 

50. The second a of ama is below the e of edus in 1. 58, and it is doubtful to which 
column the letter belongs. There would be room for a very small o between the = and a, 
so that the line might be made to end with amo. But since the w is of the usual size, it is 
more probable that the a belongs to am (e.g. amav or amaé€), and that the corresponding line 
in the next column was begun further to the right. 

59. The doubtful a at the end of l. 55 may belong to this line; cf. the previous note. 

65. This was the last line of a column. 

68-9. There are about 13 cm. of papyrus to the left of |c ms and joy, but the surface, 
though stained, appears to have been never written upon. Probably, therefore, it was 
covered by another sheet which was joined on at this point. 

75 sqq- The identity of the speakers here is not very clear. Strobilus is probably one 
of them, and mpocerarrev in |. 79 indicates that the speaker there at least is a slave; but 
ll. 75-8 would also be appropriate to Strobilus. With cxorew cf. Aul.605 Ls speculatum huc 
mistt me. ‘The first two letters of 1. 75 are very doubtful ; [x\ax or ras rns is not impossible. 
In ]. 76 the word after wacc(?) may perhaps be zemAnporat. 

78. The » appears to be the end of the line, but this is hardly certain. 

79. o Of po has been rewritten. 

88-9. There are short spaces between pias, 7, and vp in |. 88 and ovopart, rouro, rup, 
and axnxoa in 1. 89, like those which in ll. 20-3 indicate a change of speaker. 

go. There is a hole. in the papyrus as well as a space between « and ry, so e's) may 
well be read; but cf. the previous note. 

93- The first a has been corrected from e or vice versa. The reading EAAaS).| given in 
P. Grenf, is unsatisfactory, the letter before 6 being more like e than a. 

6. CoMEDY. 

Mummy A. 10. Height 12:7¢em. Circa B.c. 300-280. Prate IV (Fr. a, Cols. i-iii). 

The style of these mutilated remains of a comedy suggests Menander or 
some contemporary dramatist, but in spite of their considerable extent both 
author and play remain unidentified. Apparently no coincidence with extant 
fragments occurs, and other clues are not forthcoming. The proper names 
Novprvios (1. 7) and Séatparos (?,1. 122) give no assistance ; Anpéas (1. 40) was one 
of the characters of Menander’s Als é€amarév (Kock, Fr. 123), but that play is 
supposed to have been the original of Plautus’ Bacchides (Ritschl, Parerg. 405), 
with which, so far as can be seen, these fragments have nothing in common. 
A more positive idea of the plot is however difficult to obtain. Apart from the 
characters mentioned above there are a master and a slave (ll. 5-8), the former 

had a wife (1. 32), and was about to dispatch some friends on a journey, for 


which preparations were to be made (Il. 33 sqq.). A child and an old woman, 
perhaps a nurse, figure rather prominently (Il. 20, 43, 46, 52, 59). 

The principal fragment, (a), contains parts of four consecutive columns, but 
the first of these contains mere vestiges and of the last only the beginnings 
of the lines are preserved. There is no indication of the relation of this piece 
to Fr. (4), comprising two very imperfect columns; and a large number of 
smaller pieces have resisted repeated attempts at combination. The text is 
written in short columns in a medium-sized, rather heavy uncial hand of a most 
archaic type. The regular capital shape of 2 and the square E are especially 
noticeable; and though these forms are here accompanied by a round sigma 
this papyrus must claim to be ranked among the earliest specimens of the Greek 
literary script; cf. introd. to 4. Alternations of the dialogue are marked by 
paragraphi, and double dots are also inserted when a line is divided between 
two speakers. One or two corrections have been made by the original 

Fr. (a). 
Golf. Coli. 

TL yap tmAeov Tod elodnKkey n Bupa 
5 €€€pXeTae Tis THV (ojmupida TavTnv ev [ne] 
 evravoa TOUS apTous EKoploas amopeEpe 
[amodlos re Tot xpnoavtTe Tor Novpnviac| 
[Seeuenc| Ocmm ears. wl deup avactpewas maduy 
[....] 7e Aeyere : Te O av eExotpmev addAO TAY 
LO i atememene Jew. . [.|wev amorpexew travTas pe det 
figestevslemeeeneasnen ots Hop pev ovBey Kwdvet 
ov Tolt] & er o[t\Oa mals] duvnoeT amevat 
mos [...]. a[m|nrdOev: nf... .|s emtoxere 
 @ Tov [..].[...]. vo Aa. ew [ralurny eyo 
ett SOU Og cigicn ont: ced ] €K moAcMlop pevyere 

p ZO AON ays an eee a: Tavta mpaté ar. o¢.]. 
: 7. , PAT CT VE 

] ONES Alert et Soe cee c lAws : era mows avi.|... [.Jac 

3 Ja TUN OIW tele: orotate js 8 ove Anwop av. {. «ue 
[ 15 letters Jo d[elup QUTNV al. A ‘| 
20 [ 1 eae res] ypavy ; THY THMEpOV 


[ A aes ]. one. [- Jed] nHepav 
Al eaten Ae. |. uma.s emdopev av 
0 es ea }.v..@ THs TypEpoy 
Col. iii. 
ets avptov 0 dn modemios ytvopat 
25 [y]evoto 6 epn rot w Zev Seorora 
[eblaNvors.. |. 3). [esa [ee J€ Tpayparov 
n yap : vouigas [... .JAof.. . .urae 
MPCO PELs [-\--.\oal-|Novl. 4)... < ] 7ep7ropev 
TOP HPLLEN.. [je a7] Cee wkceliay ou cen ] 
3° TO Xpvotoy de [AlapBave: ov T.[....... ] 

cHot ye : apiOnoov ev togovTi@ 6 eto lov 
" mpos Thy yuvaika Bovdrop etmar [T]nv epnv 

els Tnv odov y eT aU’Ta TavayKal oTes 

VELL mraplovr ov evoobev ovvak[elvaone 

35 €Xovev atravTa ; AmroAXov ws aypotkos et 

guokevalojat@ mepaive Tavopar eyov 

vn tThv AOny[nly Kar Oeovs aywviw 

ovk ot[d olmas (pulp QaUTOS EML TMOL TPAaypLaTL 

EdaAriy . Be. [. .] patverar tis rovs rporous 
40 0 Anpeals a}v[ Opa |rros adda THLE TYXNL 

ovdev dtalpeper] paive[6] ou mole Kakws 

yuvat Te Bovdfer .. Jeu... .. |\nta ye 
vUpL TpwTov...... lorkiec = = 77 |atdtov 
kAaes ep. .JA[.Jvof-j7[...... 77 |potecan 
15 €f@ deper[e] avto Sev[po por mm] ras Oupas 
Tov npeTe[pou] meh ma.[.......Jov ypaus exer 
Col. iv. 
Kar| emeta TH fev [ 
fn Ta. | n ypavs 6 €kopi ¢e 
idov okol.] .| 60 Kal mpos ceauT| 

5° XpngTwv | eyo ppacw oor . | 



zis Anweé [. . -Jof 
70 masd|tov d\n : [ 
Epon . . | 
ovk 016. [. - -|pl 
55 Te XpN TOE 
avtos 8 um ovde|vos 

AaBnis mpoedOoly 

Fr. (0). Colhi: 
rio) Jova 
] . opev 

45 leTo 
|]. eka 
lu Te ov 
Ke pe. 
80 | 
Fir(c). : : : Fr. (@). 

g[o|rnpiav [ 

Sillads (uk ulec 

copol 0. Je. | 





nuaty «J. Leh 
~ @ Hplakde is @ Ziv 
o Tore alugepyl 
85 edeyolu) mada t 
Kar Ths [dliKns 7. | 
autos yap new . Vv .[ 
~ edixagie] T av pe ovat] 

TOUT €O|TL.« «ot Tar| 

QO wes eopl. . . -Aovral 

rout eo(te . |B roy [ 

SakvovT|.. +) +. ka [ 

KGL TH. [o- ees jeAovra 
ouTos oa.\oce . [ 

~ emt oOTpaToTrElO. .|7 
95 p | 2 

cuvaptiajcopfe. -]-o-[ 
‘te deylov|res oul. - -|7| 
ovx op[orloyn|o 
To Tpay|ya 7[ 

100 ovK\. Vcore Ole [ 
o H[pax)\es - | 

.t. aral 


05 | ] guykdy/ 
| - vel 
Fr. (ec). 110 €}meidn ou] Fr. (/). 120 |s néet 7 
jreokpel les pidoes [ 
Jouol > |worpaTalt 
Jo 9 yur[n 
[ ] ] orxas [ 
115 ote! 125 |ro ye a 
Dal Ins X 
io] | inode 
ee teal enn i 
| eel Jue. @. [ 
130 | y| 
Fr. (g). Fr, (/) 
alpaprialy ir. oot 
lv apapri[e 140 Javed 
] core pnxlavn a|papTygo| 
\Oov oN Bea ] : pave[p}ol 
135 \Anypevos mad\ |pavn zu. [ 
|. ov Tekvoy Ira may To Tpaypa [ 
]. cvpdopav 145 lly yap nAOe tyv Tavir 
lo el ].. @ amotvxi 
Fry (Z). . . . Fr. (2). . 
]. eutol. . J. -. af lier 
lymes TyS o...-. Jerre . [ 
150 |.€0.. mpaypa Trolno| lev prov avrats | 

] de Bovdropar Kal 


| pn tTapagyis ollKiav 

E60)" joj... - [tral 



ee n(2): : 5 : \nko, 
| tys mapor J. 8 eyo { 
Jyka yap Ti lengpar, 
jvdn| | rrodAoi[ 
155 yy, 
Fr. (7) . Fr, (72). Fr. (0). . 
165 Je. [ Irn. Up eel a is 3 | 
Jnou . [ \wovmT| le -] - [ 
jacovol : 170 |kugo . | eal 
Fri(Z). ae ee gh . Fr. (q). 
eek Jel 
175 \ade[ Irny . [ 
Joeyl Javrnv | 
has ¢| ] - KTLOT, 
ee | 185 | al 
Irena, Tce eae 

Fr. (7). ey tine Firs(s): ees Boca (2): ate is 

1-3. The ends of these lines and the beginnings of II. 12-23 are contained ona separate 
fragment, which is only conjecturally placed in this position. 

4. Cf. the line quoted by Suidas and Schol. ad Aristoph. Wud. 132 to illustrate the 
distinction between xémrewv, applied to a person entering a house, and Woe to a person 
coming out (Menander, Fr. 861, Kock) adn’ ewddnxer 7) Cvpa’ tis ovfiav (so Cobet ; eyoder nai 
ris tiv Ovpav ekov, Suid.; eyddnxe tv Oipav efor, Schol.). The papyrus supports Cobet’s 
emendation of the verse as against Kuster’s add’ eyddyxe tiv Ovpav ms e&iav. Cf. also Plautus, 
Bacch. 234 Sed forts concrepuit nostra: quinam exit foras, which exactly corresponds to 
Cobet’s version and would almost justify its attribution to the Ais eEararay, the supposed 
original of the Bacchides. 


The o which is written rather large and some little way above this line is possibly a numeral 
referring to the number of the column. The margin above the other columns is imperfectly 

8. ra... wt: perhaps another proper name, e. g. Tavpwr; but the letters between a and 
« are so blurred and rubbed that they can no longer be identified. 

g. [....] Te Aeyere is apparently addressed to the new arrivals referred to in Il. 4-5 ; 
? [eno | Tt. 

12-23. Cf. note on Il. 1-3. 

o[¢|8a ww[s|: the supposed » may be gz, but there is not room for o\v|Sapos. 

14. Either \aGew or AaBew might be read. 

15. Blass suggests per worep for the lacuna. 

16. If zpazé is right a is very likely the relative d@. -y might be read in place of 7, but 
the 6 seems certain. The letter following a must apparently be 7, v, or y, and the doubtful 
8 is possibly 2. 

17. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish a from 6 in this MS., but even if 6v were 
read after was the other vestiges do not suit dvvqcopat. 

27. The lower of the two dots after yap though very indistinct is fairly secure. There 
is no example in the papyrus of the use of a single point. 

31. 1. apOunoov. Possibly the missing » was inserted above the line (cf. 1. 25); the 
papyrus is much rubbed at this point, and if a correction had been made it would hardly 
be visible. 

33. y(e): or perhaps r(e), the sentence being interrupted by I. 35. 

34. maplovr|ov, ‘from her stores’; cf. the Homeric phrase yaptCopévn mapedvtav. 

39. pa might be read in place of fe, but 8a seems impossible, otherwise {Be\Ba: as], as 
Blass suggests, ‘would be attractive. For EMAy, v cf. P. Oxy. 211. 33 (Menander, Tleptxetpopévn) 
Tekpnplov Todt eat “EAAnvos Tpdrou. 

44-6. A small fragment, which we have after some hesitation assigned to the bottom 
of this column, is not shown in the facsimile. Both the contents of the fragment and the 
appearance of the papyrus suit this position, though the broken edges do not join 
particularly well. 

51. There may be nothing between rt and 2, but there is a space sufficient for 
a narrow letter, and also a faint trace of ink which is consistent with s. 

89-90. A paragraphus may be lost between these two lines. 


Mummy A. Fr. (4) 15-6 x19-2cm. Circa B.c. 250-210. Prats VII (Frs. 4 and 7). 

The verso of the papyrus containing the speech of Lysias against Theozotides 
(14) was used for writing a series of extracts from different authors, such as are 
not uncommonly found in papyri of the Ptolemaic period, e.g. P. Petrie I. 3 (1), 
P.Tebt.1 and 2. Among them are (Il. 10-22) a passage of thirteen iambic lines from 
the Electra of Euripides, and (Il. 91-4) an extract of four iambic lines, including 
the well-known verse, ‘Evil communications corrupt good manners, quoted by 
St. Paul. These are also probably Euripidean; but the other pieces cited are 



not iambics, and seem to be chiefly of a lyrical character, if we may judge eh the 
occurrence of such collocations as Bpopt Kxoyzrots (1. 8), oxermy ovracer (1. 47). 
They are however very badly preserved and in ee seem to be corrupt, so 
that they remain quite unintelligible. 

Two hands are found, the first being more cursive than the second, and 
approximating more towards the late third and early second century B.C. 
scripts than is the case with any of the other literary fragments in this volume. 
The anthology is therefore not likely to have been written as early as the reign 
of Philadelphus ; but, especially since the Lysias text has no appearance of 
being later than the other classical fragments from Mummy A (cf. p. 22), which 
belong to the middle or early part of the third century B.C., there is no reason 
for assigning 7 to a later date than Philopator’s reign ; and in view of the fact 
that the 25th year of Euergetes (90) is the latest certain date in the Hibeh 
papyri, it is more probable that these extracts were written before that year 
than after it. : 

The text of the £/ectra passage presents some variations from the later 
MSS., of which there are but two for this play. In the most important place 
(l. 14 = £7 371), where the MSS. are probably corrupt, the surface of the papyrus 
is unfortunately much damaged and the reading uncertain. 

Fr. (0). 
Col: Coli RLAce Will: 

[30 letters eve 
fe 10 letters Joe 
ee a} [elise ELO'OL TO co |evs, COV 

Tap €pov pepudouat o oryne..[.. 
vy dpev emav Kal ayav Talvea . kK, 

(oye eas pot POovov a... cd..[.. 
EE 99 ] 
I JOec Bpopiwt Koprros de xan 

Tone as Evpimidou 



ye es 
5 | 
ro [ove eat axpiPes olvOey es evavdplayv El. 367 
[exovor yap taplaypov a ducers Bpotev 
(non yap eidoly avdpa yevvatov marpos 
[ro] pindey ov|ra yxpnota T €K Kakwy TEKVa 370 

Lp Jo 
Onpov 7 ¢[v alvdpos movotov mynpare 




15 yvopunv ze pleyadniy ely mevnte cwpare 
Tos oluv] Tis avta Stopicas opbws Kpiver 

TAouT@L T[OlVNnpaL Tapa XpNoETaL KpLTHL 

n Tos exovolt] pnOey adr EXEL voroY 


mevia dtdala|ker 8 [a]ydpa tye xpetat Kakoly 
20 adr [els om]Aa eAOw [71s] de mpos Aoyxny [Brerrov 

1 heaae 
8. « of Se corr. 

Fr. (c). 
Coli i 

]- [Jez 
25 | . Aeto 
]- [.Jucopac 
] de cuppergo 
]. aca poppais 
30 |édav ovd ecer 
|v guow gn 
uot morepor : 
]-€.[-Ja.. ot; 

3 lines lost. 

Fr. (¢). 

55 joevav . [ 

14. v of yar: corr. from o. 

Hlaptuls [yevolir av [oorts eolriv ayabos 

k[platiotiov etk|n[e tTavt ear) ager pera 

18. First « of exec corr. from a, 

Col. ii. 

40 9....[..Jy[-Jrel 
OTe |endlea iy) slant 
omnor|.japad . « Tel 
mpos avOpwrav mov T.....[.+- 
Katpov tovwpnta.[...].[.--. 2. 

45 yAwooau ap.a avOpwrov [....... los feecsell 
ovk emaverut TUOccOa Qj... vy. nu. TEpo 

Slaliee Sa0% Oo tes Goer 
doyois wa af... .] emt Tos eTY[polis . pol 
gat pe.. pas ka. [.|x[-..]. [-]s upmAoe dopor zor . . | 

Glen kateqaus [erode is olecet<cllescnc c 


. +]. Hevov avepov... | 

Kiigre owe ee (Gle co eeres ]... ae 0 opyides av. | 
(Shy seaien eteteoe lied eee eee omer Jecde Tiwaw..... [ 
[18 letters a]koitis Oavovte . votal 
Fr. (4). 
56 }.. gay 

J... gan 


Fr. (7). 

67 eereoe [ 
] CR BE 
]. de yep ad| 

70 Jros ro. | 

(2nd hand) 

75 ov 

Jar Aeyo TAL 

]- eBay [.jeo[ 

|rpor [.). 7. . | 
toy eer 7. [ 

80 |. 





° ° 
. ° 



. A 

85 Jr. yf 
99 .[ 

12 = £/, 369. avdpa: 


60 J. ov. B~ [pel 

jrots dee oe pel 

wen. o | 
ee 8 lI 
}. yey Ovr[ 

86 linlewerele 

88 jaryou 

Fr. (P). 

7 ye 
Jour Oe . [ 
Ie» Nerf 

74 |v. [ 

Pro (2)5 PLATE Vil: 

89 [. Jaxx 
9° Xen 

ereita xpnobat | 
ogot OoKovow o. | 

evdas offo|uvek al 

p0etpovow O(n xpyoO optdtat KaKat 


wot eu Sox[e 
adr amos 7| 

so both MSS., M(urray). maida W(ecklein) following Herwerden. 


13 = 370. r: so MSS. & Stob. Flor. 87. 10 and Orion, Anzh. 8.7, M., W. 

14 = 371. The MSS. have Ardy 7 €v avdpos rAovaiov ppovnpare, For Aypsdv, Aoupdy(Scaliger), 
purov (Nauck), Ajpov (Rauchenstein), dezév (Keene), and mivov (W.) have been suggested. 
The papyrus certainly did not have A.por, for the first letter must be 6 or ¢ and the second, 
if not 7, must be read to or va, while the third is certainly » or v, and the vestiges of the last 
two letters suit ov. Sypov, if really the reading, must be wrong, and is much nearer to Keene’s 
dequdv than to any other of the conjectures. dexpdv, however, is not at all satisfactory. The 
last word of the line seems to have been originally ronpat: (possibly roupate), which has 
been altered to @povnyart by inserting po over the line and apparently correcting o to », but 
whether the was erased is uncertain. 

16-22 = 373-9. These lines are bracketed by W. following Wilamowitz, who con- 
siders that they were introduced from another play. 

16 = 373. Scopioas: dcadaBov MSS. Siopicas, being the commoner word in this sense, 
is more likely to be a gloss on d:adaBey than vice versa. 

17 = 374. tapa: y dpa MSS., y dpa W. 

ROeE O10SO- Ls ( Wis, ML). 

20 = 377. eddw|tis|: so MSS., M.: Addy mus W. following Heath. There is just room 
for v in the lacuna, but it is more likely that the papyrus read «Aéo. 

22 = 379. This line is quoted as from the Auge by Diog. Laert. ii. 33. 

32-3. For the two dots placed at the ends of these lines in order to divide them from 
the writing of the next column cf. 9. 1 and 27. 34. 

65. € is very likely the beginning of the name of the author of the following extract ; 
cf.l.9. Similar headings probably occurred in ll. 75 and 80. 

g1—4. The well-known line which apparently occurred in 1. 94 is quoted by St. Paul 
(1 Cor. xv. 33) and many other Christian writers, Socrates (A/7s/. Eccl. 3. 16) assigns the 
authorship to Euripides, Photius (Quaest. Amphil. 151) and Jerome (vol. ili. p. 148, 
ed. Basil.) to Menander; cf. Nauck’s Eurip. Fr. 1013. The remains of Il. 91-3 certainly 
suggest tragedy rather than comedy, and since another extract from Euripides occurs in 
this anthology, it is probable that he was the author of ll. g1-4. But POetpovow On «7.2. 
may, of course, have been found in Menander as well. 

95. @or: ws y cannot be read. The Doric form ¢uiv and the apparent character of the 
metre suggest that this may be an extract from Epicharmus. 


Some small unidentified fragments of poetry may here be conveniently 
grouped together ; two are Epic, two Tragic, and the last is from a comedy. 

8 (Mummy A) contains the beginnings and ends of lines from the upper 
parts of two columns of hexameters, written in a sloping cursive hand having 
a general similarity to that of the epic fragment P. Grenf. II. 5, especially in 
Col. ii, where the lines are much closer together than in Col. i. But there are 
some points of contrast: the letters in P. Grenf. II. 5 are less sloping, and some 
of them are rather differently formed ; the papyrus is also of a lighter colour 
than 8. We therefore hesitate to assign them to a single MS.; if they 
belong to the same work they must at any rate come from different parts of it. 


On the verso of 8 is some much effaced small cursive writing ; the verso of 
P. Grenf. II. 5 as now mounted is invisible. In Col. i a combat is described, 
while Col. ii contains a dialogue; ’Axavoé and ’Apyeiot are mentioned (Il. 9 and 
24). The occurrence of the new compound dpuorepyxns (= aydijxns) may be 
noted in |. 8. 

9 (Mummy 18) consists of seven small fragments, also in the Epic style. 
Phegeus, whose death at the hands of Diomedes is described in /Zad E 11 sqq., 
occurs here in connexion with Ajax in 1.2. Phegeus was one of the sons of 
Dares, the priest of Hephaestus (E 9-10), and the mention of this name suggests 
the possibility of a relation between these fragments and the //ad attributed in 
antiquity to Dares, which according to Aelian was extant in his day (Var. Hist. 
xi. 2 08 Ppvyiay “Iidda érv cal vdv cwCouerny otda), and upon which the Latin 
prose work bearing the name of Dares professes to be based. The careful rather 
small hand is of an extremely archaic character; E and © are square, and 
© has the capital shape as in 6. The only example of & (1. 3) is imperfectly 
preserved, but probably had only a dot between the two horizontal strokes, not 
a vertical connecting line as in 4. We should assign the fragments to the reign 
of Soter; cf. 4, introd. The dated documents found with 9 in Mummy 18 range 
from about the 14th year of Philadelphus (110 recto) to the 28th (94). Two 
corrections occur, one of which at least (1. 14) is due to a different scribe. 

10 (Mummy A). Four fragments of Tragic iambics, apparently all from the 
same text; there is little doubt of this except in the case of Fr. (d), which 
though very similar (cf. Plate V) is so small that it affords but slight material 
for comparison. The hand, which is of a somewhat common early third century 
B.C. type (cf. e.g. 12), is much like that of the longer pieces published in P. Grenf,. 
Il. 6 a (cf. the frontispiece of that volume ; Fr. c. 2 may belong to a). But the 
evident resemblance is hardly strong enough to justify us in referring those 
fragments to the same MS.as10. Moreover, as Blass has shown (Rhein. Museum, 
lv. pp. 96 sqq.), they are probably to be referred to the Méode of Sophocles, 
whereas the subject of 10 is apparently different ; there is a mention of Achilles 
inl. 5. The metre indicates that Fr. (2) comes from the right side of a column 
while Fr. (4) occupied a more central position. 

11 (Mummy A). The script of this fragment is on the other hand closer 
to that of P. Grenf. II. 6 c than to that of lo. The M and Y¥ have the deep 
depression which is absent in 10, and the head of the € is bent over towards the 
cross stroke in the same way as in P. Grenf. II.6 ¢. 11 is therefore, we think, to be 
connected with that group of fragments, which, if Blass is right (cf. introd. to 10), 
belong to Sophocles’ Wiobe; J. Sitzler (Weue Phil. Rundsch. 1897, p. 386) would 
refer them to some play of Euripides. The contents of the fragment, so far as 


they go, suit the attribution to the Vode (l. 4 tlumea, 1. 7 amal, 1. 9 ? orldos 
map0er{). The metre is perhaps partly or entirely lyrical; and the fragment is 
from the bottom of a column. 

12 (Mummy A) consists of four small pieces of a comedy, written in medium- 
sized upright uncials similar in type to those of 10 and 11. The character of 
the fragments is quite doubtful; a slave is addressing his master at 1. 5, and 
Antiphon is mentioned in 1. 6; but that is too common a name to be of much 
assistance towards identification. A point in the middle position is used, but 
whether for purposes of punctuation or to mark a change of speaker is 
not clear. 

8. 13-7 X 6-7 cm, Circa B.C. 280-240, 
Coli: | €olF ii 
]. sa Xep| 
leooov auTol 
Ace eke 6 
lores 20 evOn| 
5 ]... . Kecou dros. ev[ 
aude de mndrn€ evTe| 
| epmedos aee LeL Tre 
aluporepnes Apyet(o);| 
Ja 0 Ayator 25 TavTa wr. [ 
10 jv to 6 eveykov Ta mpocO| 
Ja medovTat eTAnpe| 
¢ mpoj|riecoy ws gato. | 
ja mevoopat . [ 
].- Bags 30 €LpovTo gy 
15 ] vioy kat Oecoul 
ap |pryvoroiy ndn Zevi 
ie [e]xmroOev e . [ 

Tov 7 


9. Fr. (a) 4:8 x 8-6 cm. Circa B.c. 300-280. PLATE VitEieda): 
iita(@Z)- ueolea- Coliii- 
|Haov : 2 Pynyevs Atavtos |. .|ral 

deé{urlfalony | 

viuly d[n| rou ido, 
BiG [s+ senor 

Fr. (2). Fr. (c). Fr. (d). 

ere 2 6 [ 15, jeof 

loar epivus |ru giAal Jeal 

vepedAnylepleTja Zev va. [ ai 

yennidets Zo if 
5 Joexol 

10 ]- [. .]s 

Firs(2)s 1S pelea) B Fr, (zg). 
lover 22 |nvTo lopa 
|e \kto@ia| 25 |tvot 
20-4). naa 
| ernes OL 

1. The two dots at the end of the line are to separate it from the first verse of the 
next column (I. 2), to which it nearly reaches ; cf. 7. 32 and 27. 34. 

7° Perhaps apn|ear ; cf. Homer, Od. B 135 pqTnp oTuyepas apnoer eps. 

Frs. (e)-(g). These three fragments may succeed each other immediately. |y»ro in 
], 22 seems to be the end of the verse. In ]. 23 the reading is apparently not o|xtowvro, 

10. Fr. (2) 15:5 X 4:2 cm. Circa B.c, 280-240. PLATE V (Frs, @ and @). 
Fr. (a). Fr. (6). 
|ywov wptcals] mor[ 

|. [Joe de rovs avOaiperious go. | one. | 






]ee xivdvvovs apa | 
Js nOAnrat parny [ 
|mas de 7. .] AxiAdrew's 
Jratov edeyxeTat | 
] evevorale 
Jae 7ep| 
] kndevers af 
Inode emi 
Ja ovyyapol 
| ovx amdovi 
Jevous vumre|p 
par acy 
Js 8 aguépy 
Javra mpoval 

T\amirup By, 
mas dexa ¢ 


Tapes) um 

Jopa rovde 
] yap of 
]. vous z/ 
|rov ev . [ 

|]. eAtooa| 

voluigerv ica . [ 
O\Motws ws epi 
]. eas ec maf...].. | 
Jae rag eno .|. van| 
|] tos amadev avrern[ 


Irns [Levecueljors eper[o. .]. 

Javra tas de datpovay 
Jerets cupgopas d{ 
|. Xov cot wl Temp) 
fo ].. Xel TEpyapoy Kati 
lv Kpumrros ona wo || 
veBAaorer [ 



Jarr{ lené| 
| mepi \pap| 

60 Jaz| Ja7| 
lez a. | Jor[ 

34. The letter below the superscribed o was perhaps deleted ; cf. 1. 36. 

36. evaynors, Which is unmetrical, seems to have been the original reading, though the 
second ¢ is further away from the » than would be expected. éyaipuos is found in Pindar, 
Nem. 6. 29, but évaipsos is apparently new. 

37. Cf. Eurip. Aeol. Fr. 17 ras 5€ datpdvev rixas doris pepe KaddLaT’ avinp obtos copds. 

a: 6-2 * 2:8 cm. Circa B.C. 280-240. 

ret. [ 
a\ryos adex . [ 
Inte Kaddryl 
T\uTeca Baol 
5 lov elly]rrexi 
]vos ov Tor| 
|oats ers atpal 
JOopat aoz[ 
\n@os mrapber| 
10 | alepos . [ 
juoa . [ 
2, If the lines are lyrical, ade may be 4 6€ or ade. 

5. The letter apparently deleted between ¢ and 7 may be » or p, 
8. The first letter is possibly p, but 6 is more probable. 

12. Fr. (2) 4:1 X 5:9 cm, Circa B.c. 280-240. 
Er-i(@): . 5 : ‘ ‘ ; 

[saemoteens os] TeOlepareva Oe 

lepoyerorem Bladif@ ravr epw7[nowv 

[aneweeeae se jepa mayra: Trapadedax| 

[evteaeiehte ters lew: ovkovy eyo mwadw ell 

Gea lcnocerenetaaen Ae paxns oe mpos ce deon[ora 


[emrepev] AvTipop p EmEepwTnoor7[a ce 

[eustsns anon: |ket TNS KOpns: akynkKoal 
[Eaomeecereereaen. olperk@p jor doxet Kal 
15 (@) = acne it 6(G) ghee gee Eien) 
loupe \eol Jor[ 
10 jocan{ Joe 25 |. ato[ 
juBov wot \Werau 
| avrov 7d[ 20 \oopuale 
ye guoe 9) ie 
| be « dpaci i 
15 Jos [ le] 
| aknkol 

15. There is a broad blank space after jos, which is perhaps part of a stage direction. 

13. Hipptas (?), Descourse on Music. 

Mummies 69 and 7o. Height 15-6 cm. Circa B.c. 280-240. Prare V (Col. ii.). 

Two consecutive and nearly complete columns from an oration or discourse 
upon the subject of music, probably the actual commencement of it. The 
author is evidently very ancient, for he speaks of the dppovia or enharmonic 
system as still in wide use, whereas by the time of Aristoxenus it had almost 
disappeared; cf. Plut. Mus. 37, Westphal, Wetrik der Griechen, i. pp. 420-1. 
Blass makes the happy suggestion that the fragment should be attributed to 
Hippias of Elis, the contemporary of Socrates, who gives his name to two of 
the Platonic dialogues. This sophist was accustomed to discourse in public 
on a variety of topics, of which music was one; cf. Plato, Hipp. Min. 363 C dérav 
Ta Odvpmia 7}... Tapexw euavrdv kal A€yovta Gre av Tis BovAntat Sv av por els ext- 
devéwv mapecxevacpevwn 1}, Lipp. Mat. 285 E éxetva id ob axpiBéorara éxtoracat avOpdrwv 
diaipety, Tept . . . pvduay Kal dpporidy, and Hipp. Min. 368 D. Some of these 
compositions were no doubt published in book form, but no part of them has 
survived beyond a short quotation in Clem. Alex. S¢vom. vi. 2. 624. No standard 


of comparison is therefore available ; but the contents of this papyrus, if they 
be not by Hippias, represent what he might well have written. 

The substance of the two columns is an attack upon certain musical 
theorists, who attributed to different harmonies and rhythms different moral 
effects. This is the view maintained by Plato in the well-known passage of the 
Republic 398-400, where some kinds of music are characterized as having 
a voluptuous or depressing tendency, and sare therefore to be excluded from the 
ideal state. Hippias will have none of this theory, though it cannot be said 
that the arguments with which he opposes it are very convincing. He also 
ridicules the more extreme lengths to which it was carried by partisans who 
professed to express in music the attributes of natural objects, and whose 
perceptions would seem to have been even finer than any possessed by the writers 
of some of our modern programmes. Perhaps the person principally aimed at 
in this diatribe was Damon, the famous Athenian musician and contemporary 
of Hippias. Damon seems to have given more attention to the theory than to 
the practice of music (cf. ll. 7 sqq. below) ; and he was a believer in the effects 
of music upon character (Athen. xiv. 628 C, Aristid. Quint. ii. 14), and probably 
the views of Plato on this subject were to a large extent influenced by his 
teaching; cf. Rep. 400 B, and especially 424 C ovdapod yap KivodvTal povoLKis 
rpdTor divev TOALTLKGD Vopwv TOY peyloTwr, ds pyot Te Aapov kal éyw me(Ooua. There 
is indeed some evidence for the existence of a work on music by Damon in the 
form of a speech to the Areopagus (Rhein. Mus. xl. pp. 309 sqq.). The 
Herculaneum fragments of the treatise of Philodemus De Musica, as Dr. Mahafty 
reminds us, take the same side in the controversy as Hippias. 

The short, broad columns of the text are carefully written in good-sized 
uncials of an ordinary type ; the lines show a noticeable irregularity of length. 
Punctuation is effected by means of two (in I. g three) dots, which are sometimes 
combined with marks resembling a small coronis, e.g. in 1.13. On the verso 
is a good deal of badly damaged cursive writing, probably by more than one 
hand and running in contrary directions. 

Col. i. 
[moAAlakis emndOe por Oavpaca w avdpes [EAnves 
[ec a|AAorpias Tuv[es| Tas emdergers Twv olikelwy TE 
[xvlov mrotovper{ot] NavOavovow vpas AleyovTes yap 
[olre appovikot etot Kal TpoyElpioapevol aidas TiVvaS 


KaTnyopourTes Tas O€ ELKNL EYKO|pLag ovTEs 


Kat eyovot pev ws ov det avrous ou[re Wladras 
ovre aidous Oewpew mepc wey yap tlavTja ETEPOLS 
pacw mapaxepleliv : avrov de idioy [evar ro be 
10 @pyTikoy pepos dawovrar de mept pev ravra 
@V ETEPOLS Tapaxwpovoly ov pMETPLwWS EaTrOVdaKO 
Tes ev os O€ hacw woxvev ev Tovrois ox[edca] 
Govres )—: eyovot be ws Twv perov T[a| pev 
eyKparets ta de hpovipovs ta de Sixatovs 
15 Ta Oe avdpeous ta de Seidovs mores }—: Kakos eOores ori 
ovTe Xpwma dethous : ov7e appovia av avdpe.ous 

TOlngeley TOUS avTNnL Kpwmevous |—: Tis yap ouvK oLdev 


Airjodous Kat Aodromas : Kat mavtas Tous Op 

[HomuA|not Statover pev TnL Hovolknt Xpelmevovs pa 
20 [ 

AAov] de Tov Tpaywtdor ovras avdpetolus tov du 



[ovre] xp@pa dethovs ovre apporia av dpevovs rot 

malvros ewbotav eb appovias ade )—: [wore 

[ec es Tlovro de epyovrar zodpns wore [okov tov Bioly xalra 
[TpeBlev ev rats xopdats : warrovres pey [modu yee! pov To |v 
25 [WaA]rov : adovres Se Tov widor : ovuvKpivovtes O€ 
[Tov T |vXovros PNTOPOS TavTa TavT@y yxEL|poy tTroLovyTes 
[Kae mleps pev Tov apylolyixoy kadouplevo|y ev os dn 
placiy dtaxeroOar tes : ov nvytwa povinv] exovres Aye : 
ev[Ooluovwvres Se > Kat mapa Tov pubplov de] macovzes 
3° TO vmoKelmevoy cavidioy avTots [aya Tors] amo] Tov 
Wlar|rnpiov wodos : Kat ovde ataxuv omevole e€ect ey 
Tov] petov ta pev dadyns e€ev [udtov] re Ta de Kit Tou 
wert de epwlrwvres et ov PAVE GU sows Ja tra emir... 

Cece aor. vecoOat : Kat of catupo mpos [avroly xopevorires 

A fragment, possibly belonging to this papyrus: 




‘Tt has often been an occasion of surprise to me, men of Hellas, that certain persons, 
who make displays foreign to their own arts, should pass unobserved. They claim to be 
musical, and select and compare different tunes, bestowing indiscriminate blame upon some 
and praise upon others. They assert that they ought not to be regarded as harpers and 
singers, for these subjects, they say, they concede to others, while their own special province 
is the theoretical part. They appear, however, to take no small interest in what they concede 
to others, and to speak at random in what they say are their own strong subjects. They 
assert that some tunes make us temperate, others wise, others just, others brave, others 
cowardly, being unaware that enharmonic melody would no more make its votaries brave 
than chromatic will make them cowards. Who is there who does not know that the 
Aetolians and Dolopes, and all the folk round Thermopylae use a diatonic system of music, 
and yet are braver than the tragedians who are regularly accustomed to use the enharmonic 
scale? Therefore enharmonic melody makes men brave no more than chromatic makes them 
cowardly. To such lengths of confidence do they go that they waste all their life over strings, 
harping far worse than the harpers, singing worse than the singers, making comparisons 
worse than the common rhetorician,—doing everything worse than any one else. With 
regard to the so-called harmonics, in which, so they say, they have a certain state of 
mind, they can give this no articulate expression; but go into ecstasies, and keeping time 
to the rhythm strike the board beneath them in accompaniment to the sounds of the harp. 
They are not even ashamed to declare that some tunes will have properties of laurel, and 
others of ivy, and also to ask whether. . .’ 

2. okey is very doubtful; the first letter may be ¢ or o or possibly r or v. 

18. If Oc pyorvdA\nor is right, 1, 18 was remarkably short; but the letter before ¢ in 
l. rg is almost certainly «, and the preceding vestiges suit y. oi @epuomvAnoe would include 
e.g. the Aenianes and Oetaeans, the eastern neighbours of the Dolopes and Aetolians. 
The mention of the Aetolians here, as Blass remarks, is appropriate in the mouth of Hippias 
of Elis, the Eleans and Aetolians being closely related. 

19-20. The division pal\Xov is not usual, but |Aov| seems insufficient for the lacuna at 
the beginning of 1. 20, while adXov! is too long. 

28. Of the supposed dots after Xeyew only the upper one is preserved, and that not very 

29. mapa might also mean ‘in defiance of? 

30. m Of amo is not quite satisfactory, and vy would in some respects be more suitable. 

31-4. There can be little doubt that the small detached fragment |: efec| «.7.A. con- 
tains the concluding portions of these lines, but its exact position is uncertain and the restora- 
tion proposed is highly conjectural. {zoy| 7 in 1. 32 is suggested by sua in the next line ; 
but the supposed a before «ia is quite doubtful, and may be e.g. A. 7 Of | re is represented 
only by the tip of the crossbar, which would also suit y or v, but these letters are far less 
likely here. Compared with jopevo|t in 1. 31 the supplement |:diov| 7 is somewhat long, but 
with three iotas may perhaps be admitted. f[avAoly in ]. 34 corresponds well with [opevol.. 
Of the letter before exa all that is left is part of a vertical stroke, which would be consistent 
also with p. 


14. Lysras, Jz Theozotidem. 

The recto of this papyrus, of which there are twenty fragments, contains 
a speech of an Attic orator directed against a certain Theozotides. This, as was 
observed by Blass, must be the oration of Lysias xara QeoCorigov mentioned by 
Pollux 8. 46; cf. Sauppe, 77. Orat. AZt. p. 189. The script is a good-sized 
uncial, a thick pen being used and the lines written close together. On the 
verso are a series of poetical extracts (7) in two hands, of which one is a some- 
what later type of cursive than most of those found in this volume. But, 
though the writing on the verso may perhaps belong to the reign of Philopator, 
the oration does not present any appearance of being appreciably later than the 
other literary fragments found with it, which probably belong for the most part 
to the reign of Philadelphus, or at latest to the early part of the reign of 
Euergetes. No stops are used; but the paragraphus is found, and a blank 
space is sometimes left at the beginning of a new sentence. 

The three principal fragments, (a), (4), and (c), contain the lower portions of 
columns and clearly do not admit of any combination. The order of the three 
is uncertain, but Fr. (2) more probably precedes (or follows) the other two than 
comes between them, because the writing on the verso is different from that on 
the verso of Frs. (4) and (c). Of the small pieces, Frs. (e), (2), (#), and (), on 
account of the writing on the verso, may be connected with Frs. (4) and (c), while 
Frs. (/), (g), and (x), of which the writing on the verso is in another hand, 
cannot be combined with Frs. (4) and (c), but may be connected with Fr. (a). Frs. 
(2), (2), (2), (2), (0); (g)-(¥) have no writing on the verso, and to which part of 
the roll they belong is quite obscure. 

It is difficult to glean much information about the nature of the speech from 
these scattered fragments, connected sense being only obtainable in a few passages. 
That the accusation against Theozotides was a ypadi sapayduwr is however clear. 
From Frs. (a) and (4) it appears that he had proposed to exclude illegitimate 
and adopted sons of citizens fallen in war from the benefits which the State 
conferred upon orphans, while Frs. (c) and (d) are concerned with a proposal, 
which was apparently carried by Theozotides, to reduce the pay of the tnzeis 
from 1 drachma to 4 obols per diem, while raising that of the trrorvgéra., an 
inferior class of soldiers, from 2 obolsa day to 8. The description of this measure, 
which was obviously directed against the richer classes in the interests of the 
poorer, supplies some interesting information on the pay of the Athenian cavalry ; 
cf. note on ll. 72-81. How the two seemingly distinct questions of legitimate 



ancestry and pay of cavalry soldiers were connected is not evident. The text 
is not very accurate, several corrections being necessary; cf. notes on Il. 29, 41, 
and 85. 

Fr. (a). Col. i. Colm: 
[Perjeletters oma lie: 
roscrasonek jrov|. . . .jevopl. 
[ee verste's| a= TOUS. aNtoma woe 

5 | 14 letters jvrns jac: vopol 
[....] Tlolus voBovs re Kat Tous 15 Bookn[ 
[7roln|Tous oVTE vopipws ou T0|. JoA[ 
[0 vytwls euor yap Soxet Tay op K@l Tol 
[pavwv...).... Tay Tovs vobous pnoev| ov 

HON Bese, opt T\n wow 7 <Tous kK e€o7[ 
[7ountous Tous] yap yvnotous 20 Tar| 
[ 15 letters xlaradee oloyv 7| 
[fame ae Tou|s vobous v . Tol 

Fr. (0): Col. i. Col. ii. 

TaT|pwlmy | 


[.. tT]ns puoOogolpias].[...Jo.[.. 
5 [.-]. €[. Jos Karedumev autos [ . 




..| mavtoy detvotaroy et 

To Kad|AtaTov T@v EV TOLS 
[vopo ws Knpuypa Ocogo 

[7id]ns OuaBadrrAct Kat wevdos 

30 [kajraortnoe Alovvcios yap 

loraly o Knpv€ avayopevnt Tous 
[op|\pavous marpobev vireitrav 
matepes ameOavoy ev Tw To 

35 AcH@l paxomevor virep TIS 


maTploos avdpes ovres ayabor 
[kat] Tovrovs n moALs eTpege pe 
[xe] nBns 
40 [Olwyv avepers AEywv oT Tovade 
dia Ocogoridny ovk etpepov 
7 TavTas alvayope|vav opolws 
.{ 11 letters rev] monte 
Kat Tov [vo|)dov..... (peuce 

45 TAL Tepl TNS Tpogpns viroclwmov 

evtav0a moTEpa yopls 

50 Tov Al 

st aes ae a | 

a ey OL =| 


ees Remeron, i come 
se . 

TavTa ovx uBpis Kat [uleyadn diaBo OP gollocbelcsce| 
[A]n [ 14 letters elmeidn Se Kye Yao Ta Nev. [-)- - || 
OPEV TS. o> o) oma,0..< w avjdpes dikacrat [ jaBouev €.] . (cere 
eres scler: Tnv akpotrjoAw KaTedaPe 60 .[.].. adAme Of 
Fr. (c). Colkr Colt PEATE Er: 
7o .[ 1 letters J]. ovros et mpec 
See Ed - ] mepe pudakns 
i Ree ]. [-]Joap epi to 
‘Ajeulov Ocogolridns ovtoc 
61 |. L Tnly yveleny ayopevel 
juT@ 75  Tovs peyv immeas avTt dpa 
] aro xens Tecoapals oBjoXovs pic 
\v vote Bopopery tolvs 6 um}rorogo 
65 p |ror kj. Tas okT@ ofBodovs] av7i duo. 
jac Kae [o\BlojAlouv Kat zlav}rny tHy 
].. amo 80 -yvopny €.[..-.. jvexvpl. 
TIN po eviknoey ev Tol O\npor dit 
bodopiav JupnOn OUEKGL ilo on » yvlopny 
Colviit) (EEATE) E- 

amracav Tous immeas n vTeEp 
Tov TapovTos Kal Tov pe|AAov 

uTapxovT@y adda mpoglvAar 


85 Tos ouvreve THK pLcb[odo 
plav eywm O€ To Topiety ov[k 

WooTepely wlpny elvat Tov [ 
Fr. (d). Fr. (é), 


100 KalToL U[ 

Jeweroev vyas 7 

95 Jan efewae pl 
Ins diwBerras | 
la [xlpnpara | 


- OY, 

hov ovyKa, 
1 or 2 lines lost. 

Fr: (2). 


128 ljuvav.. 

t\rmevs [ 
130 olppav . [.. . .lan[ 
lov... €p| 
J. y guvrel 
Jrot. . . a7ro7[ 
]. ov Tye poOlodopiay 
135 jaoay evtedn | 
is ro meptz| 150 
| pio Pogoptal 


90  pndev EaTT@ THY U[TaAp 



[r]ovrov ovx oKvelv xpn [.... 

(iss NNG A cele) etre! ee aceite 
Br. (7): 
Gol. i. Col. ii 
Ol [Lote Talon 7[ 
Ira ¢ 7 
jer Oa 8 lines lost. 
joer T2neyne [ 
05 |. et7e ov v “| 
av \dpes 7[ 
learnt 2OU aE 
10 .|A silemel le 
Pri(z): Keane): 
\onuen 152 Ipl-IX 
|ra to evoy Jacato 7[ 
}. nendn ]- per. .[ 
]. BovrAev 155 Jewv . war 
|. [.] BovrAevone }. cae nf 
levoret [ 
jadeyor ol 
‘ko [peace 
7 apavoua 160 joul 
[Poy Ball oe 


Westra ass cs ov 7 Fr. (7). Fr. Ga). 
140 Jav . [.] . var] Sb ne 169 eal 
pouf- -] . - [ 164 [.-. Jef Le th at 
ate 165 Kat Tous . [ jaz] 
(2) es nyovlioTalt |. eum[.. . . Juke 
161 ]utizvo . | prey  Otx[y l€nv ewat tns €. [ 
|rarol [oludev an Juyxarader| 

Fr. (0). 
Cols. Coliit: Fr. (f). (Fr. (q). 
7) silo topo one ipeall ee a Palle |) 188 |pop| 
[. .]. v emnpea| Jopare . | ]- + Aol 
ey yap ke. | over [ 190 |viT . { 
Eni 185 Tn|s pcbodoptals ]- moj 
HOON geioa bo] low Gil 
175 |. 70 [ 1. [ 
Bi(7): Ere (5). Bra): 
Boag ee [ele | ney, Ilo jieello I BO 2 |eet 
Invat tpe| aBew [ loot «| 
LOGE |. «. « OVOTO, ies lelnpren Jous of 
J. -[ 200 Jonz»| 
J. + Adl 
Fr. (2). Fr. (zw) Fr, (x) 
205 jevo[ 208 |. [ 

Joa . [ ]muc 211 |rrof 
feel 210 july ]- a 


7. ‘romlrous: cf. 1. 39. This restoration is the basis of our calculation of the size 
of the lacunae at the beginnings of lines in this column, and, if it is correct, the supplements 
pu Popopras| in Il. 5-6 and ov|re dikaro|s in ll. 7-8 are both too long. The addition of three 
or four more letters to the initial lacunae throughout this column would render the restoration 
of ]. 7 very difficult and make the lines longer than in the other columns. 

26-47. ‘Most monstrous of all is it that Theozotides should misrepresent the most 
splendid proclamation that is enjoined by law and establish a falsehood. At the Dionysiac 
festival when the herald proclaims the orphans with their fathers’ names, and adds that the 
fathers of these youths died in war fighting for their country as brave men, and these 
youths were brought up by the State until manhood, is he then to make a separate 
announcement concerning the adopted and _ illegitimate sons, saying that owing to 
Theozotides these were not brought up, or is he to proclaim them all alike... and speak 
falsely by passing over in silence their bringing up? Would not this be an insult and the 
height of misrepresentation ?’ 

Cf. Aesch. Za Cres. 154 ratty more tH tpepa peddOrTav Sorep vuvi Tov Tpaywdav yiyverOat 
. + TpoehOay 6 Knpv& kai mapaotynodpevos Tovs dppavods av of marepes ray ev TO TOheU@ TEeTEEUTY- 

KOTes veavioKovs TavoTAla kKeKoopHpéevous exnpuTTE TO KGANCTOV KpYyLa Kal mpoTpETTLKaTAaTOY mpos 
aperny OTe TovGE TOvs veaviokous dv oi maTEpes ETEAEUTHGAY ev TO TOAELO AVdpes ayabol ‘yevopevot pexpt 
pev 7Bns 6 Sypyos erpede, veri bé Kabordivas rHde TH mavorAia adinow ayaby Tixn TpémecOa Emi Ta 
€avT@y, kal Kadei eis mpoedpiav. Other references to this ceremony are Isocr, viii. $2, Aristotle, 
Pol. ii. p. 1268 B 8. 

25-6. Perhaps [e|rt d€| wavrav. 

29. duaBardrcr: 1. diaBarer. 

40. l. avepe. Cf. Aesch. Jn Cres. 155 ti mor’ dvepei. 

41. erpehov: |. erpedev, sc. 7 méXs. 

46. Blass suggests xara tns moAews for the lacuna, and in 1. 49 [tv upeTepay axpor \ohw. 

47-9. The reference seems to be, as Blass remarks, to the’ expulsion of Isagoras in 
B.C. 508. 

72-81. ‘... with regard to war Theozotides here advocates the motion that the 
knights should be paid four obols instead of a drachma, but the mounted archers eight obols 
instead of two, and this motion . .. he carried in the assembly of the people . . .’ 

The immeis, who in the Peloponnesian war numbered 1000, received from the State (1) 
on enrolment a kardoragis, i.e. a sum of money for equipment, which, as some think, had 
to be restored when their liability for service ended, and (2) a yearly juo6ds for the 
maintenance of their horses (Schol. ad Dem. Zn Zimocr. p. 732. 6); but they probably 
received no personal pay, at any rate in times of peace (Ar. Z£y. 577 mpotxa yervaiws duvvew); 
cf. Boeckh, S/aatshaushaltung (3rd ed.), i. p. 317, and Gilbert, Syaa/sa//. i. p. 362, note 2. 
The sum of about 40 talents, which according to Xen. App. 1. 19 the State paid annually 
cis 70 immxdy, is identified by Boeckh and Gilbert with the allowance for the horses. It is 
tempting at first sight to connect this payment of 40 talents, which makes 4 obols a day for 
each inrets, with the 4 obols a day which Theozotides’ scheme substituted for the previous 
drachma ; but Xenophon was speaking of times of peace, while it is fairly certain that the 
payments in the Lysias passage refer to time of war. For the payments to the knights 
during war the only piece of evidence is Dem. 1 PAv/. 28, from which it appears that they 
received 30 drachmae a month, i.e. 1 drachma a day, so that in the interval between the 
speech against Theozotides and the first Philippic the rate which prevailed before Theozotides’ 


law seems to have been restored. The scale of payments to the immorogéra was previously 
unknown ; if our reading of ll. 78-9 is correct (neither d:dpaxpou nor dvow Spaxpaw can be 
read), Theozotides raised their daily pay from 2 obols to 8. They were a body of 200 men, 
of inferior rank to the immeis and probably drawn, like the toféra, from the lower classes of 
citizens, since it may be inferred from Lysias xv. 6 that service as a tmmorogdérns was 
despised ; cf. Gilbert, of. czt. p. 363. The proposal to pay them twice as much as the 
immeis Was evidently a democratic measure. The proOopopia of which the papyrus speaks 
must have been independent of the allowance for keeping a horse, since 2 obols would be 
ludicrously insufficient for that purpose. 

85. ovrrewe seems to be an error for: ouvtepvew: cf, Thuc. vill. 45 tyv te peo Popopav 

92. 1. ovr. 

93-6. Cf. Ar. Ath. Pol. 28. 3. 

151. This line was very likely the last of a column. 


Mummy A. 19:2 X38-3cm. Circa B.c. 280-240. PratE II (Part of Cols. i-iii). 

Though in point of size the second of the literary papyri from Hibeh, this 
piece proves to be disappointing. It contains six consecutive columns, some in 
excellent preservation, from an oration which in Blass’s judgement—and his 
opinion on such a point is not likely to be challenged—was never really delivered, 
but is only a rhetorical composition. The supposed occasion is considered by 
Blass to be the situation resulting from the death of Alexander the Great, and 
the speaker, who is addressing an Athenian audience and advocating a forward 
policy, to be Leosthenes. That orator and soldier was with Hyperides the most 
active opponent at Athens of the Macedonian dominion, and played the principal 
part in the movement which resulted in the defeat of the Macedonian general 
Antipater in Thessaly. Antipater threw himself into Lamia, and there Leo- 
sthenes, who commanded the Greek allies, met his death. The phraseology of 
the papyrus is somewhat colourless, but references occur which suit this inter- 
pretation, e.g. the mention of a sudden change in the position of affairs (1. 43), 
the allusion to the speaker’s office as general (1. 116), and his personal risk in 
the cause he championed (1. 61) (a danger which as events were to prove he did 
not over-estimate), the possible reference to Taenarum (I. 58), and the exhorta- 
tions to make a bold bid not only for freedom but for the leading position 
which freedom, if gained, might bring (Il. 73 sqq., 106 sqq., &c.). The composition 
is a favourable specimen of its class, and the early date gives it a certain interest. 
In spite of frequent confusion between « and « and other misspellings, there is 
no doubt that this text, which is carefully written in a handsome hand of medium 
size, is of approximately the same date as the bulk of the literary papyri in this 

56 ABE SPAP Ye] 

volume, and it is most unlikely to be later than the reign of Philadelphus. The 
formation of omega, in which the second curve is unfinished and an intermediate 
stage between 2 and W is shown, should be noticed ; cf. 26, which illustrates an 
earlier stage in the transition. Punctuation is effected by a paragraphus, which, 
when the pause comes within the line, is accompanied by a horizontal dash 
marking the exact point. The text has been corrected with some care, 
apparently by the original scribe. There is some illegible writing on parts of 
the verso ; cf. note on Fr. (a). 

Colt. SELATE a: Colsii> PLATE: 
|. . apou e€eTe Kat havepov amact 
|re 30 Toews nOos ovTw pakpav 
5 Jal [almexel TOV Kakws TlVa TrOELV 
] Tov pnOevy adixouvToy 
jeve EXAnvev — wore Kat Tous 
]ra ‘havepos e€nuaptynkoras 
L\tkpav 35 a0wovs apinow dia Tv 
10 lov umepBodnv rns piravOpo 
ie: mlas— pariota de oye 
la Cecbe mpos tov Oewv w av 
] yap dpes AOnvator [Sore ro Bpa 
\re 40 Ouvety Tos vuv KabeoTw 
15 joriav olv nkloTa cupdepoyv eotty 

ogels yap €lKoS Elval TOUS € 

K Tov petaBoAwy Kalpous 
ov avtif[AnwWeo]|Oe Kar mavoac 

45 [[o]]@e mpocexovres rors tHv 

pabvyiav acdadetav 

amokaXovow — kal pn poBn 

CeuTeS aie ee wees jecre 

Tyv ceTnpiav ad{Aa] Kat Bap 

50 onoavres Totavta Bovdle]v 

cacbe St wv pderore pin |Oev 






Col. iii. PLATE II. 
Na] nd.) . [-Jng8e row [.. 
7. [.lovwr zlot]s pev ar 
NGISHETH illo tamer a4 |vov vu 
de pile] pecoOat KaO\nxov cori 
Klale AoyiCeaOale we n\ktoT av 
ev Taur|apeot Kan|uevov 
‘Kat pnbevos vorlepovv ira 
Tov ev THL TOoAE oO. [.]. YoV 
OUTS af piArokiy \dvvws ere 
aTnvat Tolt|s m[palypacw ev pn 
T&@ TOV Kalpov nrliocTapnv 
pov ovoav THs neTEpas 

COTNPLAS—— Kat Tsou. 2. sas ] 

Tov edoBlojupny [.......... 
kabeatnkotov [......... ] 

eve uidlel|um aunois [2 5. 

Kat Tamewvos um|oA|npbeny 
‘os pndev Tor ouppepovTav 
mpoloey av duynbers 

GANG Kal voy mpolo|pw Ta ped 
AovTa Kat Tapakadw mpos Ta 
Mpaypara vpas Kau [[mapa 
Karol] tyv Tuxny nv 

Col. iv. 

[ Bn ka] 

TlaAeurety — kat Seopat 

PadioTa Tov ewTEpwv 

80 tev map vpllel|iv ex mados 7a 









TEepl TOV ToAEpLov LKaVaS 

TalwevOevT@y — akpacat 

MOTE Tats dlavolas Kal xpn 

gacbat ros ofKlelols copacw 
evKalpos THY amodeglv 
apeTns — wvia| vouigovTat 
‘Kat Tov adXov Xpovov 
novxagew pn du avavdpiav 
adr\a Ou evriaBetay — Kat pn 
bes w@ avdpes AOnvaiot 
Xopis TnS vperepas dvva 
pews ETL Ta TpaypaTa 
Katadceatepov Badiwpev 

pn? vues avayxagno be 

dvow Oarepov n monte eTEpol{s] 

To Ke€vopevovy n peT €AAT 
Tovo oTpatoredov KiVvdu 

vevely nov addAws Tres 

KOU TOUSTEL yasketeayam. septs 
amoxpnoacbe kat THY EV 
ToL TpatTe opOws arpa 
Aevav edecbe peTa TAELOVOY 
Thy owrnprav upllellv avros 
avagiov ear w avdpes 

AOnvato tov eh Mapabovi 
kat Sadapw Kiwdvvev dia 









amoylwwokovTas THY 7 
yeHoviavy — n voplcovTas 
Tautnv ececbar more vp 
amo TavTopatov pnd ort 



nv pn Ac] Was acphareilals Kat 
xetpotovials] gpovrigely — | 

adrka THs vulelTepals cwrn] 

plas Tovto mpattwy [mpoce| 
AndrAvba mporagas eplavrov 

umep TNS Kons edevOepicas 

Col. vi. 
oo A 
ek - [ 
Toure . [ 
GiKGUPOS! | @tensot- ocean ss ; 
ENG cry em le Tia: [ek weave es Bs 
MOP TB THO os 86 606606 
UNC GGUS 650 Go ado 

yer [[6]] Kae tovs aaddAous [ey 
Xwptous Oefous .Jou[. .]. a. . 
EGECU MEME [ers carayle « atonaleiar 

TOISITENTHUS Ol cence is (cay ton sia aee 
LUN PL STUNG oct sesh ek ek peta: 

COUNELGS? De wile shea es os 
ENCUOEDUAS 052. [o este ote 5) 4 oy « 
Ep ovmel prot deter sates A@n 
VALOUS WIT El.) Heyes" uote ye 

Geousteptowy Wilatras.e lisse 50 


VO RMELUN Ti eae tonenc ren me moue a 
UMN KOOUSOVT|[ AS. le.) a sere slic iene 

éerau ITC Bars recmcreacaes Ohba 
145. |. kKQ| 

(Gyst tee ee ae (0) 

jarae Tous Kj ]uevor . |. 

}. @rAloly pel J 

laBas wr. [ MZ 

]repov per [| 155 Js de vyes eav 

150 ]rov kaj lev vuvy de vpas 

J.-[ aJAX ex mporep . | 

me | 

]- ea. 


Oe Ree An slioes. || oot Gos Naser 

17. The letters way are on a separate fragment placed here conjecturally. 

26-51. ‘... you will have more contented allies, and will make it plain to all that 

the temperament of the State is so far from doing an injury to any one of the innocent 
Greeks that in the excess of its kindness it leaves unpunished those who are plainly guilty. 
Most of all, by heaven, consider, men of Athens, that delay in present circumstances is 
fatal, for the opportunities arising from the change are likely to be short. 
and give ear no longer to those who misname inaction safety. 
through fear, but take courage, and adopt resolutions by means of which you will never... 

Seize them then, 
Do not miss your salvation 

5 . eee ~ , > s 4 , 
26. €U GpeOTOTEPOUS TUpLayous : cf. Diod. xviii. 10 rav mpeoBewv ETLTOPEVOLEV@Y Tas TroAets 

. al mAciorat pev cuvebevto THY TULpayiay. 
43. Tov peraBodov : i.e. the situation created by the death of Alexander. 


44. mavoa|o6e has been altered to ravoac|6e; with combinations of « both methods of 
division are frequent. 

54. The first word does not seem to be mAeovwv, though rev may be the last word in 
]. 53. ye may be read in place of 7, but y:rovy is unsuitable. 

55-66. *... you ought to imitate ...,and reflect that although I am inferior to 
no... in the city, I should not have stationed myself at Taenarum and courted danger so 
freely in my conduct of affairs, if I did not know that the occasion was pressing, and that 
the turning-point of our salvation was at hand.’ 

58. For ev Taw! apar abn pevov cf. Diod. xviii. 9 puoOopédpovs, dvras peév dxrakuryidlors, B1a- 
tptBovras de wep Taivapoy rhs Medonovnoov, ‘The reading Tavv,apw is however very uncertain. 

60. Cf. Il. 116 sqq. At the end of the line the vestiges of the letter before vey would 
suit 7, and ENA /nvev is a possible reading; but this is not satisfactory in itself, and moreover 
the initial letter is much more like o than «. ozparnyev is inadmissible. 

73-99. ‘But now I foresee the future, and urge you to take action and not to neglect 
the good fortune which... Especially the younger men, who have had among you a sufficient 
military training from their youth, I entreat to exert all their powers of mind and to employ 
their bodies in a timely display of their prowess, in order that their tranquillity in the past 
may be ascribed not to unmanliness but to prudence; and that we, men of Athens, may not 
proceed to action with inadequate numbers and without the aid of your power, nor your- 
selves be forced to the alternatives of either obeying the orders of others, or wiih an inferior 
force risking an engagement...’ 

78. ta Of karaderrew was at first omitted owing to homoioteleuton, but was added before 
the insertion of the paragraphus. 

go. |. 4 (nw)es (sc. the mercenary troops), balancing p76 vpes in 1. 95. 

96. 1. woew for ronre. 

to1—122. ‘ Make use of ... and choose the safety which lies in right conduct, working 
out your own preservation in larger force. For it is unworthy of the daring deeds at 
Marathon and Salamis, men of Athens, that you should persevere in the complete renuncia- 
tion of the hegemony, or in the idea that it will ever come to you of its own accord without 
a single effort on your part. I therefore, since it was the duty of a general not to consider 
his own safety or chances of election but your preservation, have come forward with that 
object in view in championship of general liberty .. .’ 

107 sqq. Cf. Diod. xviii. 10 kat mpdrepov pev 6 dios . . . tots emi Sovdela orparevoa- 
pevous BapBdpovs npvvato Kata Oddarray, Kai viv olerar Sev in€p THs Kowhs Tov “ENAjvwv Twrnpias 
.. » Mpoxivduvevery, 

131. modews apynyerev: i.e. Athena; cf. C. I. G. 476 ’A@nva apxnyérids kai Ocois, &c. 

Fr. (a). The shape of this fragment suggests that it should be placed at the top of 
Col. vi, so that 1. 124 combines with |. 148, but to this there are two objections, apart from 
the difficulty of finding suitable readings :—(1) the column would then be higher by a line 
than the others; (2) on the verso of this column there is some half-effaced writing, while 
the verso of Fr. (a) seems to have been left blank. The verso of Frs. (6) and (c) on the 
other hand has been used, and they may well belong to Col. vi, though we have not 
succeeded in placing them. Fr. (e), judging from its colour, is likely to belong to Col. i. 


16. THeopHrastus (?). 

Mummy A. 13-3 XI9Q:5 CM. Circa B.c. 280-240. 

One nearly complete column of twenty-two lines, and parts of two other 
columns, from a philosophical work, the subject of the fragment being a discussion 
of Democritus’ atomic theory, particularly in relation to the composition of the 
sea. The author is, as Blass suggests, very likely Theophrastus, a passage in 
whose works affords a close parallel to part of the papyrus ; cf. note on 1. 41. The 
treatise to which the papyrus belongs may have been that zepi téaros (Diog. 
Laért. v. 45) or one of his other numerous works on Natural Philosophy. 

The text is written in a thick inelegant hand of a somewhat cursive character. 
It formed part of the same piece of cartonnage as Cols. ix—xi of 26, and belongs 
more probably to the reign of Philadelphus than to that of Euergetes. The 
paragraphus is employed, and a blank space is left before the beginning of a new 
section in the middle of a line. 

We are indebted to Prof. H. Diels for some suggestions in the interpretation 
of this papyrus. 

Coli. ColFi: 

22 medovos amo. Xr. AuTopevns am|.|d). . 

| mecOat pnoltly ev Teor vypwl TH opmola 
mpos Ta omgola Kabamep Ev TwL TavTL 
\v 25 Kat outws [yljeverOar Oadratray Kat 
5 |o Tadrka Ta af..|.. Ta TavTa cuvEvE 
lize xXGevT@v Tlwly opodpvdAwy oTt Oe 
eK T@Y opoyevoy eat OadaTTa 
Ie (alVEtI teres [sence kat €€ addAov elvat havepov ovTe yap 
ja pev ovy part 30 AiBavwroy ovte Oeoy ovTEe aiAdtoy 
10 oTa@ | wept Tns yevece OUTE VITPOVY OUTE OTUTTNpPLaV OUTE 
ws | oc pey yap vo acpadtov ovre cca peyada kat Oavpa 
| TNs vypoTntos oTa moAAaxou yiverOar THs yns TOU 
vjdarwov o. de T@l fey ovy Mpoxetpoy et Kat pnOev 


An\uoxpiros Se 35 adXo oxewacbar StoTt pepos Totwv 
15 ]. ¢ move tTnv OadatTav Tov Koopov Tov av 

|. Tpev Tov Tplolrov dnot yeverOat Kat Ta 


5 lines lost. Oavpacta Kat Ta Tapadoywtata 
Ts hugews womep ov ToAAas oveas 
40 EY THL ynt Stahopas €MEL TOLOUYTL 
[ye] rov[s] yvdovs dia Ta oxnpata Kat 
[To] ajAluvpov ey peyadwy Kat yovio 
[etldwv ovk [alAoyoy mas mept Thy 

30. 8 of Oevor corr. 34. v et Of mpoyetpor ec Corr. 

Col. iii. 

K7, . [ rey. . wt ea. | 
is lure || 55 9 y-([Joup...[ 
TE Tpol 5 [aso Bab ceo soa5 | 
Dig 2 bllo-e-all-o | TowouT|. .|aAf 
Karr .[. .] . of (otwy amo. . | 
EL nOk lores Th 2 kexpioOat mr v 
50 adda k...[ 60 Tep gvowy . | 
T..-7Ta.[ KOE Teer 
ouTe ..v.[  meon{. J). [ 
GOD GO oe boc [ tows Kaz[ 
23-43. ‘...he says that in a wet substance like is (drawn) to like as in the whole 

creation, and thus the sea was created and all else that is... , through the combination of 
homogeneous atoms ; and that the sea is composed of homogeneous atoms is also evident in 
another way ; for neither frankincense nor sulphur nor siiphium nor nitre nor alum nor 
bitumen nor any other important and wonderful things occur in many places in the earth. 
In this way, therefore, it is easy to perceive this at any rate, that by making the sea 
a part of the world he maintains that it is produced in the same manner as the wonderful and 
most unexpected things in nature, on the view that there are not many differences in 
the earth; for to one at any rate who considers that flavours originated by reason of 
atom-forms, and saltness out of large and angular particles, it is not unreasonable . . .’ 

22. Probably on|medovos, as Diels suggests. 8¢ moAAns eroperns aye X\a\ Cer Oar cannot 
be read. 

26. al..|..7a: adpvpa is inadmissible. Diels’ suggestion a[AA]oxora (cf. Il. 32 and 
38) is possible, but the vestiges before r (which is nearly certain) do not suit oxo at all well. 

41. Blass well compares the discussion of Democritus’ theories in Theophr. De Sens. 
66 (Diels, Hragm. d. Vorsokr. p. 393) adpmupov S€ rov éx peyddov Kai ob Tepupepar KT A, 


17. Savyincs OF SIMONIDES. 

Mummy 69. 27-4 X15 CM. Circa B.c. 280-240. 

A single column, written in cursive, containing a series of wise sayings, 
which according to the heading at the top were by Simonides, on the subject 
of expense. This heading suggests that the collection is a fragment of an 
anthology, but whether the papyrus itself formed part of an extensive work is 
doubtful ; for there are 3 cm. of margin on one side of the column and 24 on the 
other, without any signs of adjacent columns; on the left side however there is 
the junction of another sheet. The hand is a clear cursive which grows smaller 
in the last few lines ; on the verso are parts of two columns of an account, which 
may be by the same writer. The date of the papyrus is about B.C. 250. 

This Simonides, as the reference to the wife of Hiero (1. 4) at once shows, 
is Simonides of Ceos, who enjoyed a great reputation as a practical philosopher, 
and is ranked by Plato with Bias and Pittacus (Rep. i. 335 E). One of the 
sayings here recorded, which alludes to the poet’s well-known miserly tendencies, 
explains a reference in the RAetoric of Aristotle (cf. note on Il. To-13). The 
others we have not traced, though some illustrations will be found in the 
commentary. A Vienna papyrus (Wessely, Festschr. f. Th. Gomperz, pp. 67-74) 
contains part of a similar collection of anecdotes about Diogenes. 

evdoxiper 8 avrov mpos adnOe(e 
av Kal To mpos tnhv Tepwvos yu 
5 vatka deyOev eEpwrnbe is 
yap €l TavTa ynpacKel vat 
edn Any ye Kepdouvs TaxioiTa 
de at evepyeoiar Kat To Tplols 
Tov muvOavopevoy Ola Tt €t 
10 = etdwAos efn Sia TouT eval 
petdwAos ort padrdrov axGot 
TO TOS avnAwpeEvols 7 TOS 

meplovolv zloluTwy Oe eka 

Tepov nOos pev exey hav 

15 Aov mapa de tas opyas Kat 


GAS se bis eR ple Sh! ae | Tey av 
CRO RONTONS eee cu ononte ‘Ae Otome p 
WES tijlovs 6 ocho cow ] ovre amrA ws 

emew [e€ avtoly wpererc bale 

20 yxademoy [6 evat| To pn xpn 
aOat Tos av{rov .|... tKots ar 
Aa Tots addAoTptois 
ro b€ avndobev odtyou jer 
elANTITAaL TpotavadicKeTal JE 

25 To Oumdracioy dio dec edXkELv Tas Wydous 

kat To map avtov Oavercecbat 
oTay THL avayKalal Kal pvolknt 

Tpopne Kpnonral womep Ta Cala 

‘Expenses: Simonides. Esteemed also for its truth is his remark to the wife of 
Hiero: being asked whether everything grows old, he replied, “‘ Yes, everything except love 
of gain, and benefits quickest of all”; and his answer to the question why he was frugal, 
which was that he was frugal because he disliked expenses more than savings. Each of 
these habits had a bad side, but was... owing to the passions and... of men. Therefore 
one was neither (harmed) nor strictly speaking benefited by them, But it was irksome to 
use other people’s property and not one’s own. Expenditure is reckoned of slight account, 
and twice as much is spent again; so one should draw back the counters (?), A man 
borrowed his own money when he used only necessary and natural food, as the animals do,’ 

4-5. About the last ten years of Simonides’ life were spent at Hiero’s court in 
Syracuse. Another reply made to Hiero’s wife is recounted by Aristotle, A/e/. ii. 16. 

6-7. Cf. Plut. Aw Senz, p. 786 B Suypwridns €deye mpds rods eyxadodvtas ait@ pirapyupiay, 
Ott TOV GAwY areaTtepnpevos bia TO yhpas NOovav, bro pias Ere ynpoBookeirat THS avd TOD KEpdaiveLy, 

10-13. This is evidently the saying of Simonides referred to in Arist. Ahes. iv. 1 
evKowarntos eat 6 eAevOepios eis xpnpata’ Sivarat yap adiKceioOar ju) TiM@v ye Ta XpHuaTa, Kal 
padrov axOopevos, et te Seov pup dvddrwoer, i) AvTOvpevos, «i jut) Séov TL dvadoae, Kol TH Vipwvidy ovK 
apeoxdpevos. Love of money was a favourite reproach against Simonides; cf. e.g. Aristoph. 
Pax 697-9. 

17. Perhaps Avorre|Ae. m Or o may be read in place of 2. 

18. An infinitive having the sense of ‘injured’ is lost in the lacuna; the first letter may 
also be y or p, or perhaps a or A. 

20-2. The unpleasantness of dependence upon others is apparently here the point. 
Cf. Stob, Zc/. x. 61 Sipwvidys ... efrev, Bovdolunv dv drobavav Tots €xOpois paddov amodurety }) 
(av SeicPa trav hiro. 

25. €Akew tas nous is perhaps a technical phrase derived from account-keeping, but 
we have found no other example of it. According to Hadt. ii. 36 the Greeks in counting 
with Wijou moved the hand from left to right, so ‘drawing in the yypo’ might mean ‘keep 



on the credit side of the account.’ Prof. Smyly makes an alternative suggestion that the 
phrase may be equivalent to the Latin calculum reducere, to take back a move (at draughts), 
to retire from a position, the meaning practically being 8 det py dvadkeoa. But the expres- 
sion would be extraordinarily fanciful and obscure if that is the sense. ras hous éAxvolas 
occurs in P. Petrie II. 13 (6). 15, but since that papyrus relates to quarrying the meaning 

there is probably quite different. 

26. It is not very clear whether daverfecOa: also is governed by det or whether xa ro 
begins a new sentence, the inf. SaveferOar reverting to the oblique construction of Il, 13- 
22; onthe whole the latter view seems to give the better sense. Cf. Seneca, De Benef. v. 7 
M, Cato ait, ‘ quod hibit deertt, a te ipso mutuare’, Ep. Mor. 119, §§ 2 and 12 (Smyly). 

29. The short oblique stroke after awAye apparently represents a stop. 

18. Literary FRAGMENT. 

Mummy A. Frs. (a) + (2) 9:2 x 5-9. Circa B.c. 280-240. 

The following small pieces of a literary work of uncertain character remain 
unidentified. rs. (@) and (6) both come from the top of a column, but their 
relation is doubtful; the combination suggested in our text seems likely, but 
is far from certain. The resulting lines, so far as they go, will scan as the latter 
parts of iambic verses, and Blass seems to be right in regarding the fragments as 
derived from a comedy. The hand is slightly larger than that of 10-12, but is 
of a similar appearance, and probably dates from about the middle of the third 
century B.C. 

Frs, (a) and (0). 

|. podes Kall. . . .Jnxucar| 
elutegukev [appjovia Tpol 
lns kat ox..[..].@ kat Bal 

r ] r 
olwoav Tavul. .|. Tat yevr| 

5 xt mavra [ra| copa yive[rat 
Kalrepyagopiev|a Kat emOi van((a\y 
juoee puxpov alvgnoa pf 16 ] twapal[ 
] evder 7... .]. ae Stan |] ov af 
Jywors 710. [. J. v. @ nol la . ad 
10 vat ovy €.[... Tplomr | la[ 

lUT aS Ocmaye wen. |paco| 


]. @s ywlerlae apadl 
jrov [cop\otatal 

15 Ibe evex| 

1. The letter before p has a high projecting tip, which would suit e.g. y, 7, or v. 
3. Probably oxtal or oxv6, 


19. Homer, Jad II and I//. 

Mumny A. Bi, (rier x1 bcm. Circa B.c. 285-250. Prarie Vile (Er. 2): 

Twenty-three fragments, of which nine very small ones remain unidentified, 
containing parts of 105 lines from Books ii and iii of the //zad. The writing is 
a handsome uncial, still retaining a tendency to approximate to the epigraphic 
form, € and O being written very small, M and II very large. It represents one 
of the earlier types of literary hands in the present volume and, like 26, much 
more probably belongs to the reign of Philadelphus than to that of Euergetes. 

In common with 21 and 22, both of which are fragments of MSS. already 
in part known from other pieces published in P. Grenf. II (cf. p. 5), 19, of which 
no published fragments exist, is remarkable for its variations from the ordinary | 
text of the //iad, especially in the insertion of additional lines, of which there are 
at least 12 or 13. Four of these expand a line describing the impartiality of 
Zeus (I 302), and three the description of Menelaus arming himself (I 339). 
As is the case with most of the additions in early Ptolemaic Homer fragments, 
where the ‘ new’ lines in 19 are sufficiently well preserved to be intelligible, they 
are generally found to have been derived with little or no alteration from other 
passages in Homer; and many of the variants are also due to the influence of 
parallels, one conventional phrase being substituted for another, e.g. in T 361. 
Of the readings peculiar to 19 some are probably errors, e.g. the nominative 

F 2 


eypnvn in B 797, the amusing variant eoopowy for ap dpdwy in T 325, and 
nxe for 7A0e in T 3573 but others are quite defensible, e.g. B 826 [rwyv avid 
nyepoverie for Tpdes trav adr npxe, and VT 304 Aapédavor 76 |€|mux[ovpor for evxrijpdes 
’Axatof; and though none of the new readings can quite definitely be called an 
improvement, one of the additional lines inserted after I 302 (302 0) tends to 
support a conjecture of Nauck in B 39, from which T° 302 @ is derived. 

Comparing the text of the papyrus with what is known about the readings of 
, the Alexandrian critics, 19 has three lines (B 673-5) of which two were athetized 
and one omitted by Zenodotus, and two other lines (B 724-5) which he athetized, 
but agrees with him in reading paprupes (I 280), where Aristarchus had pdprvpot, 
while in 295 19 agrees with Aristarchus in reading advocopevor, not apvaodpevor, 
but contains five lines (B 791-5) obelized, by him; and no particular connexion 
is traceable between this text and that of the chief Alexandrian grammarians. 
Nor does 19 exhibit any marked affinity to the text of other and later Homeric 
papyri which partly cover the same ground, the most important being the 
Bodleian Homer discovered in the Faytim, P. Brit. Mus. 126 and P. Oxy. 20. It is 
specially noteworthy that the new line inserted in P. Oxy. 20 after B 798 is 
absent in 19, which also differs from P. Oxy. 20 in B 795 and 797. Among 
|;other peculiarities of the papyrus are its preferences for augmented forms, e. g. 
| T 296 nvxorto, T 370 evdxe, FT 371 nyxe, and for gy in place of 7 (T 355 and 369), 

The supplements of lacunae in 19-21 and 28 follow the text of Ludwich; 
in 22 that of La Roche. 

In P. Grenf. II. pp. 12-13 we gave, in connexion with those fragments 
belonging to 20, 21, and 22 which were published in 1897, our views upon some 
of the problems arising from the great variations in early Ptolemaic texts of 
Homer. Our contentions, in common with the much more far-reaching claims 
advanced by some critics upon the earlier discovery of the Petrie and Geneva 
fragments, were subjected to a searching examination by Prof. A. Ludwich in his 
exhaustive discussion of the subject, Dze Homervulgata als voralexandrinisch 
erwiesen. The main objects of that work were (1) to dispose of the idea that 
the texts of the early Homeric papyri represented the pre-Alexandrian condition 
of the poems, out of which the vulgate was produced by the labours of the 
Alexandrian critics ; (2) to show from a detailed investigation of the Homeric 
quotations in writers of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. that the texts used by 
| them substantially agreed with the vulgate; and (3) to deny practically any 
* critical value to the early papyrus fragments, which exhibit neither the vulgate 
nor the critical texts, but an ‘erweiterte oder wilde’ category of Ptolemaic 
MSS. (p. 66). We take the present opportunity therefore of restating our views 
in the light of Ludwich’s criticisms and the new evidence. 


The present volume supplies additional fragments (20-22) of P. Grenf. II. 2-4, 
and pieces of two previously unknown Homeric papyri, 19 and 28. In the case 
of 21 and 22 the published fragments had already proved with sufficient clearness 
the existence of great divergences from the vulgate, and the newly discovered pieces 
merely provide further illustrations of the same tendency, which is particularly 
marked in the case of 21. 20, however, of which there are now extant parts 
of 71 lines in all, enables us to form a fairer estimate of the real nature of the 
MS. hitherto represented only by P. Grenf. IT. 3, parts of A 109-13 containing 
no variations from the vulgate. So far as the insertion of new lines is con- 
cerned, 20 still seems to be more free from expansions than 19, 21, and 22, since 
the insertion of a line after A 69 is more than balanced by the omission of 
three lines which are found in the ordinary texts. The total number of lines is 
thus two less than in the corresponding portions of the vulgate, but on the 
other hand the existence in this MS. of numerous variations similar in character 
to those found in 19, 21, and 22 is now clear; for although the fragments of 20 are 
very small and most of the lines are represented by a few letters only, there 
are several noteworthy variants. Considering that additional lines tend to 
be very unevenly distributed, especially in 19 and 21, the circumstance that only 
one happens to occur in the extant pieces of 20 is quite compatible with the 
possibility that this text presented the same characteristics as those found with 
it; but the przma facie evidence is in favour of drawing a marked distinction 
between 20 and its companions, and probably that papyrus represents either 
a text which has been subjected to critical revision, especially by the omission 
of many superfluous lines, or else a tradition which from its origin was relatively 
free from interpolations, being in this respect perhaps superior even to the 
vulgate. In any case 20 certainly cannot be claimed to represent the 
vulgate, Both the two new papyri, 19, with 12 or 13 new lines out of 105, and 
28, with 3 out of 30, exhibit the same degree of divergence from the vulgate as 
21 and 22, 23 being of particular importance because it is the only early Ptolemaic 
fragment of the Odyssey, the text of which seems to have been in as fluctuating 
a condition as that of the 7zad. With regard to the later Ptolemaic period there 
is now a little more evidence for determining the date at which the vulgate 
superseded Other texts, P. Fay. 4 (© 332-6 and 362-8) and P. Tebt. 4 
(B 95-210, with Aristarchean signs) both belong to the latter part of the 
second century B.C., and agree fairly closely with the vulgate, at any rate 
as to the number of lines, whereas the numerous Homeric fragments of the Roman 
period published in recent years very rarely contain new verses, and serve to 
illustrate only too well the overwhelming predominance of the vulgate. Since 
the Geneva fragment, which is a MS. of the same type as the third century B.C. 


fragments, belongs to the second century B.C., probably the earlier half of it, 
the dividing line, after which the tendency for Homeric papyri to vary from the 
vulgate rapidly diminishes, would seem to be best placed about B. C. 150 or even 
earlier, rather than at the end of the Ptolemaic period. 

Briefly, therefore, the situation is as follows. There are extant fragments 
of six different papyri earlier than B. C. 200, most of them certainly, and perhaps 
all, earlier than B.C. 240 (the doubts expressed by Ludwich, of. cit., pp. g—10, as 
to the early date of the Petrie fragment, though justified by some remarks of the 
first editor, have become, through the advance in knowledge of the palaeography 
of early Greek papyri, quite baseless). Of these six, one comes from the Faydm, 
four from either the Heracleopolite or Oxyrhynchite nome, not improbably 
Oxyrhynchus itself, one (23) from the Heracleopolite nome. Five of them belong 
to the /iad, one to the Odyssey ; and all six exhibit very marked divergences from 
the text of the vulgate, particularly in the insertion of new lines. These are 
distributed through five of the papyri unevenly, in proportions ranging from one 
new line out of four in 21 to one line out of about twelve in 22, but are much 
less conspicuous in the sixth (20), which, so far as it goes, exhibits a shorter text 
than the vulgate. In the fragments of the second century B.C. there is only one 
which shows similar characteristics to the same extent; and by the end of that 
century the vulgate, so far as can be judged, seems to have almost attained to 
that pre-eminence which {is attested by plentiful evidence in the Roman period 

From these facts we should draw the following conclusions :— 

(1) The effect of the new evidence afforded by the present volume is to 
confirm and amplify the evidence regarding the characteristics already known 
to exist in early Ptolemaic Homeric fragments, and to reduce still further the 
probability that the prevalence of these divergences is due to chance. It could 
formerly be maintained that, side by side with the ‘eccentric’ traditions re- 
presented by the papyri, there were circulating in the Fayim (the supposed 
provenance of all the previously known fragments) as many or even more texts 
representing the vulgate, and that, taking the Homeric papyri earlier than 
B.C. 150, the majority of 4 to 1 in favour of the ‘ eccentric’ traditions gave quite 
an unfair idea of their preponderance. The majority in favour of the ‘eccentric’ 
traditions has now become 6 to 1, while even the one exception (20) is not the 
vulgate text ; and the area in which there is evidence for their currency has been 
extended, so that the probability that the extant fragments illustrate not unfairly 
the prevailing texts in Upper Egypt is greatly strengthened. Whoever and 
wherever the readers of the vulgate in the third century B.C. may have been, 
they certainly do not seem to have included more than the minority, if any at all, 
of the Greek settlers in Upper Egypt. Accordingly we adhere more strongly 


than ever, in spite of Ludwich’s objections (of. cé¢., p. 188), to the view (P. Grenf. | 

II. p. 12) that ‘if there was any one tradition generally a in Egypt in the 
third century B.C., it was at any rate-not our vulgate.... It is clear that the 
rise of the vulgate into general acceptance took place in athe interval (between 
B.C. 150 and 30). The point of view implied by that sentence is rather seriously 
misunderstood by Ludwich. He supposes (zd7d.) that we wished to maintain 
‘dass unsere Homervulgata .. . erst in der zweiten Halfte der Alexandrinerzeit 
entstanden ist,’ a hypothesis which runs counter to the main argument of his 
book, that the vulgate was in existence long before the third century B.C. But 
though his presentation of the case against the position that the vulgate was not 
yet in existence when the early papyri were written leaves nothing to be 
desired in thoroughness, it does not affect our contention which was something 
quite different. What we meant and what in fact we said in the passage quoted 
above, though perhaps with insufficient clearness, was not that the rise of the 

vulgate took place after B.C 150, but that its rzse into general acceptance occurred 

after that date, i.e. that it did not supersede the ‘eccentric’ traditions until then, 
the evidence indicating that the text generally accepted in Egypt in the early 
Ptolemaic period was not the vulgate. And this we believe more firmly than 
before. The question how and when the vulgate, whether identical or not with the 
text called by Didymus and Aristonicus the kovw7, took its origin is another 
point ; and even granting Ludwich’s contention that the vulgate is substantially 
the text quoted by the fifth and fourth century Greek authors (which is by no 
means certain), so far from there being any evidence that in the earlier Ptolemaic 

period the vulgate was the normal text in circulation through Egypt apart from) / 

Alexandria, there is now fresh proof to the contrary. 

(2) A more satisfactory comparison of the ‘eccentric’ texts with those of 
the chief critical editions is now possible, because among the Homeric fragments 
contained in the present volume, unlike those in P. Grenf. II, there are several 
passages in which the readings of the Alexandrian critics are known. On the 
whole the new evidence does not suggest any particular connexion between the 
‘critical ’ and the ‘eccentric’ texts, and supports our previously expressed view 
that, beside the enormous- differences between the vulgate and these papyri, its 
disagreements with the text of Zenodotus and Aristarchus appear comparatively 
insignificant. Through the publication of Ludwich’s most valuable collection of 
Homeric citations in fifth and fourth century B.C. authors, the position which 
these occupy in relation to the vulgate and the ‘eccentric’ texts can now be 

estimated. Ludwich’s statistics (op. cét., pp. 140-1) show that out of 480 verses | 

quoted by various authors before B. C. 300 only g-11 are not found in the vulgate ; 
from which he concluded (1) that the text used by the pre-Alexandrian writers 

72 EBERLE eA aed: 

) was much nearer to the vulgate than were the ‘eccentric’ traditions, and (2) that 
| so far from the Homeric tradition being in a chaotic condition before the time 
| of the Alexandrian grammarians, most of the pre-Alexandrian writers (24 
or 25 out of 29) already used the vulgate, not the ‘eccentric’ texts. Without 
| advocating the extreme position maintained on the appearance of the Petrie 
Homer fragment by some critics who denied the existence of the vulgate text 
at all before the Alexandrian period, and admitting that the fifth and fourth 
SEneUty, B.C. quotations are on the whole slightly nearer the vulgate than are the 
‘eccentric’ texts, we have less confidence than Ludwich in the inferences which 
he bases upon his figures. It is quite true that the average of new lines in the 
‘eccentric’ texts (about 70 in 547 lines!, i.e. r in every 8 approximately) 
is higher Ne that in the quotations (about 1 in 48), and if the new lines in the 
‘eccentric’ text had been at all evenly distributed the argument from the 
difference in the averages would have considerable weight. But,*as we pointed 
out in P. Grenf. II. p. 13, and as is again clearly illustrated by 19 and 21, 
the additional lines are distributed very unevenly. They tend to come at points 
where the thread of the narrative is loose, and to occur in batches; and between 
the premiss that there are few of them to be found in the pre-Alexandrian 
quotations and the conclusion that the texts from which those quotations are 
derived were free from extensive insertions of new lines, there is a broad gap, 
over which Ludwich’s bridge is very insecure, as will appear more clearly from an 
instance. In 19 there are 12 additional lines out of 105, but of the 13 fragments 
(treating Frs. (7) and () as one) 7 have no additional ee at all, and 8 out of the 
12 additional lines occur on 2 fragments. Similarly in 21 (©) there are (including 
P. Grenf. II. 2) at least 26 new lines out of 105, a proportion of 1 in 4; but 9 
of these occur after 1. 65, 4 before and 4 after |. 55, and 4 after 1.52: throughout 
the other passages additional lines are scarce. It is obvious that several citations 
might be made from the extant fragments of 19 and 21, particularly quotations 
of 2 or 3 lines such as figure largely in Ludwich’s list, without in the least 
betraying the fact that the average proportion of new lines in 19 is 1 in 8 org and 
in 21 is actually 1 in 4, and that if only one or two short quotations were made 
from 19 or 21 the chances against the true average being indicated are very 
2 ar aie especially as the additional lines are seldom very striking. More- 
over, of the 29 authors who appear in Ludwich’s list, and 25 of whom he claims 
as che the vulgate, those who are represented by more than 3 quotations 
and 10 lines in all (when the evidence is less than that it is really too slight to 
be of much value) number only 7, and 2 of these 7 (Aeschines and Aristotle), 

1 In this calculation we omit 20 for the reasons explained on p. 6g, but include the Geneva fragment, 
which contains 9-13 new lines out of 77. 


and possibly a third (Diogenes of Sinope), make quotations containing 
extra lines, indicating that if they sometimes quoted from the vulgate 
they also at other times quoted from the ‘eccentric’ texts. The question 
of the relation of the quotations in fifth or fourth century B.C. authors to 
the vulgate can only be decided satisfactorily if a sufficient amount of the 
‘eccentric’ traditions is recovered to make possible a direct comparison between 
it and the quotations. Passages in which the pre-Alexandrian quotations 
happen to coincide with the extant fragments of the ‘eccentric’ texts are 
naturally very rare, but one occurs in © 20-2, where Aristotle (7. Coo KW. 4. 
p. 699 B, 35) transposes Il. 20 and 22 of the vulgate, whereas 21 agrees with the 
vulgate with regard to the order. There is however a quotation in Plutarch 
(Consol. ad Apoll. 30) of a passage which is partly preserved in P. Grenf. II. 
4 (¥ 223), and in this it is curiously significant that Plutarch’s text had an 
additional line which is also found in the papyrus. And if a writer as late as 
Plutarch was using a text which apparently resembled the ‘ eccentric’ class long 
after the pre-eminence of the vulgate was unquestioned, have we the right to believe 
in the widespread circulation of the vulgate any earlier than the date attested by 
strong and direct evidence? The papyri, as we have shown, lend no support to 
the vulgate until the second century B.C.; and the quotations from fifth and 
fourth century B.C. authors are for the most part so small and so easily 
reconcilable with an inference exactly opposite to that drawn from them by 
Ludwich, as to be quite inconclusive. To maintain, therefore, as Ludwich pro- 
poses, in the face of the four additional lines added to © in the Pseudo- 
Platonic Alcibiades II and the quite different version of ¥ 77-91 in Aeschines’ 
speech against Timarchus, in spite of the consensus of the early Ptolemaic 
papyri and notwithstanding the obviously hazardous character of an argument 
from averages based on comparatively few instances, the thesis ‘dass es ganz 
unmoglich ist, die Existenz und die iiberwiegende Herrschaft dieses Vulgartextes 
fiir die voralexandrinische Zeit zu leugnen, seems to us a considerable exaggeration. 
In this, as in several other respects, the truth would seem to lie between the two 
extremes represented by Ludwich and the critics whom he was chiefly opposing. 
However unwelcome it may be, the fact remains that the history of the Homeric 
vulgate prior to B.C. 150 is still involved in very great obscurity, and dogmatism 
of any kind is to be deprecated. Before B.C. 2co we can distinguish a certain 
number of texts, represented either by papyri or by quotations, which certainly 
were not the vulgate, and a much larger number of texts, represented however 
only by quotations, which may or may not have been the vulgate. Until 
we know what were the readings of the ‘eccentric’ texts in the passages 
corresponding to these quotations, and whether they coincided or not with the 


vulgate, the agreement between the quotations and the vulgate do not prove 
much, since the ‘eccentric’ texts often agree with the vulgate in the matter of 
lines throughout quite long passages. The extreme view that the vulgate was 
the creation of Alexandria is rightly rejected by Ludwich; for there is evidence 
to show that much of the Alexandrian criticism failed to influence the vulgate, 
and it is on general grounds unlikely that the vulgate could have attained its pre- 

/eminence by B.C. 150 if it had only come into existence in the previous century. 

That some of the texts represented by the fifth and fourth century B.C. quotations 
were of the same character as the vulgate is likely enough. But that it had any 
right to the title of the ‘common’ text before the second century B.C. is extremely 
disputable. So far as the evidence goes at present, the use of the vulgate text 
seems to have been rather the exception than the rule down to B.C. 200. 

(3) This brings us to another point. What were the causes of the rise 
of the vulgate into pre-eminence? For Ludwich, who regards the vulgate as 
already firmly established when the text of Homer first emerges from the 
mists of antiquity in the fifth century, the answer is easy. But if we are right 
in thinking that in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. the text which became 
the vulgate was fiercely competing with other texts which tended to be much 
longer, and that it only achieved the victory about B.C. 200, something more than 
its intrinsic merits would seem to be required to account for its success. If the 
‘eccentric’ texts, which are, we think, as old as the vulgate, were good enough 
not only for Aeschines and the author of Alcibiades /7, but for the first three 
generations of Greek settlers in Upper Egypt, why were they abandoned by 
the succeeding generations? It is very difficult to acquit the Alexandrian 
Museum of having had some part in the matter, at any rate in Egypt itself, and 
to disconnect entirely, as Ludwich wishes, the foundation of the chief University 
of antiquity from the great changes wrought during the next century and a half 
in the ordinary copies of the text of that author who was more studied than any 
other. Of the general teaching received by students of Homer at the Museum 
very little is known except the views of particular grammarians on particular 
points; and the fact that very few of the readings preferred by the great critics 
seem to have affected the text of the vulgate is by no means inconsistent with 
the hypothesis that the influence of the Museum, as a whole, in some way 
tended to foster the reproduction of the vulgate in preference to the ‘ eccentric ’ 
editions, Here too, as we have stated, we have endeavoured to strike a mean 
between the position of those who contended that the Alexandrians created the 
vulgate and that of Ludwich, who denies that they were in any way responsible 
for its general currency. 

(4) With regard to the value of the variants in the early papyri, the new 


lines are in many cases no doubt interpolated from other portions of the poems, 
and the other differences are often due to the unconscious influence of parallel 
passages. Some of the new readings, however, especially the omissions in 20, 
are at least defensible, and in themselves as good as those of the vulgate, though 
none of those found in 19 and 21-3 has so strong a claim to be considered 
superior as that much-discussed variant xa d¢ Ipis (¥ 198), found in P. Grenf. IT. 
4, in place of oxéa 8 "Ips. That Ludwich rejects this is not surprising in view 
of his threefold classification of Ptolemaic Homeric MSS. (cf. p. 68) and his 
anxiety to deny any critical value to the ‘ erweiterte oder wilde’ category. But 
in his continued preference for @xéa 8’ “Ipis in the face of the other reading Ludwich 
has not commanded general support (xa dé “Ipis is accepted, e. g. by Monro and 
Allen, though not by Leaf) ; and the attempt to limit the knowledge of the truth 
to particular families of MSS. to the exclusion of the rest is not likely to be more 
successful in the case of Homer than in that of other authors. One of the most 
valuable results of recent discoveries is the proof of the fallacy of pinning one’s faith 
to one tradition. A comparison of the papyri of extant Greek authors with the 
corresponding portions of the mediaeval MSS. shows that the early texts (cf. e.g. 
26 introd.) hardly ever favour in a marked degree any one of the later MSS. or 
families of MSS., while in the case of some authors, e.g. Xenophon (cf. P. Oxy. 
III. pp. 119-20), the papyri show that modern critics have often gone too far 
in preferring one family of MSS to another, and prove clearly, what is apt to 
be sometimes forgotten, that the proper guiding principle in the reconstruction of 
the text of any ancient author is a judicious eclecticism. And though from the 
point of view of Homeric criticism of the twentieth century it may be convenient 
to label the texts of the early papyri as ‘eccentric’ or ‘wilde,’ it should be re- 
membered that there was a long period during which this class probably formed 
the majority of texts in circulation, and that the similar variants existing in 
several of the quotations of Homer in the fifth and fourth century B.C. writers 
are now freed by the evidence of papyri from much of the suspicion of error 
which formerly attached to them. As was pointed out by Mr. Allen (Class. Rev. 
1899, p. 41), it is now known that Aeschines and the author of Alcibiades IT 
neither were the victims of imperfect recollection nor adapted passages to their | 
own ends, but were quoting copies more or less resembling the texts of the | 

early papyri. 
Fe: (2): 

B 174 [ovr dn otkoy de gidnv es mratpida yat\av 

175 [pevgeoO ev vneoor TrodvKAniot TrecovTles 


176 [kad de kev evywAnv II ptapewr kat} Tpwor Alirroire 

178 [ev Toit amodrovro gidns ato mar'pidos ainis 


177 [Apyeinvy Edevnv ns evexa moddo| Axaltov 

179 [aAA tOt vey Kata Aaov Axatoy pnde| T [Epwet 

° . . . . . 

179. For pyde r epwee the first hand in P. Brit. Mus. 126 has yadxoytrover, which is 
possible here. 

Pr (2): 
B 204 ovk aya0n m[oAdvkolpavin els Kolpavos eaTw 
205 els Baoidevs wt €[d@xe Kpovov mais ayxvAopyntew 

204. ayabn: ayalév MSS. 
205. ¢dwxe: somost MSS. Saxe Aristarchus and a few MSS. 

B 621 [wes o pey Kreatov o 6 ap Evputov Axz|opimvos 
622 [tov & ApapvyKedns Aiwpns npxev alpupov 
623 [tov de teTaptwy npxe TloAvEewos Beoe|.dns 
The position assigned to this fragment, which was suggested by Blass, is almost 
certain. The remains of the first and third lines suit B 621 and 623, and though aluvpov 
in ]. 2 conflicts with the termination of B 622 in the MSS., the variant presents no difficulty. 

dpvpev occurs at the end of a line in B 876, but the ends of the other two lines are there 

621. Axrlopiwvos: the MSS. are divided between ’Axroptwve (Aristarchus) and "Axropiovos, 
622. At@pns npxev a\pupor : PXE Kparepos Atwpns MSS. ‘The reading of the papyrus 
avoids the spondaic ending of the verse. 

Fr. (¢ 2). 
B 673 {Nipevs os kadXtoros avnp| virio IAwov nrOe 
674 [Tov ad\Aov Aavawy pelr apv{pova IIndXcwva 
675 [|aAX adamadvos env malupos de ot ecnleTo Aaos 


676 [ot 6 apa Nuovpoly 7 etxov [Kpalmrabov [re Kacov re 
677 [kat Kov Evplvmvdo1o mod [ynoovs te Kadvdvas 
678 [ 

679 [Oecoarov we dvlw [Hpa}kdedao [avaxtos 

tov av Pedlimmos te Kat Avriilplos nynoacOnv 

673. This line and 675 were athetized by Zenodotus, who omitted 674. 
675. eonlero: eimero MSS, (except one which has érero). 

Fr. (d). 
B 715 [Adknorts Hedtao Ovylatper [edos apiclry 
716 [oc 8 apa MnOornyv cal Oavpaxiny eparewniy 
717 [kat MedPoray exov kat Ord Kova tpnxeav 
718 [tov de Piroxrntns npxev Tofaly ev [elido[s! 
719 [ewTa vewv eperar 6 ev exaoTnt Tely{T]nKovTa 

720 [euBeBacav rogwy ev eidores ide paxjecba't 

720 [aA o pevy Ev vnowL KELTO KpaTEep adryea Trac]x[@y 


723 [€Aket poxOi(ovta Kakwt odooppovos| vdpou 

ev0 0 ye KEIT axewy Taya Se pynjoeloOar epeddov 


722 [Anpvar ev nyabent oft piv AuTov ves Ay]atov [ 

724 | 

716. epatewn[y: evéuovro MSS. 

718. Zenodotus read here rav ad iyepoveve Siroxryrns dyos avdpav. 

722. The reading awy is very doubtful, especially the a, and 31 letters are rather long 
for the lacuna ; in]. 723, which has 31 letters in the corresponding space, there are 7 omicrons, 
and in I. 724 only 21 or 22 letters are lost in the corresponding space. 

724. This line and 725 were athetized by Zenodotus. 

Fr. (2). 
B 794 [deypevos ommojre valupw adpopynbeev Ayaror 
794 @ es mrediov Tpwecor dovoy Kalt Knpa deportes 
795 [Tor] pv ap edopevn mpolce|d[n modas wxea Ipis 
796 [@ yepov| ae Tor prudor gidrflole alKpiToe evo 
797 [ws Te molre epnyvn troAdeufos 8 adiacTos opwpev 
798 [dn perv] para moda pay[as evondrAvboy avdpwr 


799 [add ov tr] To.ovde Tocovde [TE Aaov oTwTa 
800 [Any yap gvddAo:ow] €[or|koz[es ny Papaborow 

794. For the new line inserted after this cf. B 352 ‘Apysioe Tpweaot dvov kat ipa 

795+ HW ap eonern: pv ecranern the Bodleian papyrus discovered at Hawara (collated 
in Leaf’s edition), a \pw ecccapevn P. Oxy. 20, pw fewraper other MSS. Cf. 241, where dpa 
eiSduevos is found in a Vienna MS. in place of tip’ eevcrduevos OF dpa eloduevos. Lines 791-5 
were Obelized by Aristarchus. 

796. ae: sO X; aiei other MSS. Cf. T 296. 

797. [ws Te wolre etpnyn: the restoration of the lacuna is uncertain. The beginning of 
this line seems to have given much trouble in early times. P. Oxy..20 has os re zor em [ecpnyns 
which will construe but not scan, the Bodleian papyrus @s re mor etpnyns which will scan 
and is defensible. The vellum MSS. mostly have @s zor’ én’ eipnyns, with the unmetrical 
variant és r én’ in three instances, and éomep em’ in one. 19 is unique in having the 
nominative eipyym, which can hardly be justified and may represent a corruption of the 
reading @s TE TOT E(pHnvns. 

198. After this verse P. Oxy. 20 inserts from Fr 185 a new line evOa wav 7 Aecorous Ppvyas 
a'vepas ao| AoTwAODVS. 


B 813 tnv n Tot avdpes Bartetay KikAnoKovowy 
814 abaviaror de re onpa modvoxapOporo Mupiwns 

815 €vOa [tore Tpwes te SiexpiOev nO emxovpot 

816 Tpwolt pev nyepoveve peyas KopuvOatodos Extwp 
817 [IT ]p{ejap[idns aya tar ye modu mAELoTOL Kat apioToL 

Fr. (2) 
B 826 {rav avO nyepover[e Avkaovos aydaos vos 
827 [ITavd\apos wt Kat togiov AmodAwy autos edwKev 
828 [or 6] ap [A\épnoreav vaiiov Kat Snpov Amatoov 
829 [Kat Th vetav exoy Kalt Tnpecns opos airu 

830 [tov np)xéE Adpnatos re [kat Audios Awobwpy€é 

826. [ror avd nyeuovev'e: the doubtful @ might be «, but there is not room for [rev aur|e. 
Most MSS. (including the Bodleian papyrus) read Tpaes rev adr’ jpxe, a few having the 


variants 7 adr’ or 7 ad. The papyrus version can be defended against that of the vulgate; 
for ot S€ ZéAecav Evacov in 824 are in any case contrasted with Tpwoi pev iyeudveve in 816 and 
AapSaviev air’ jpyev in 819. But Tpées is, as Blass observes, in accordance with E 209 and 
211, where Pandarus calls his people Tpaes. 
828. ap: so A and some other MSS.; the Bodleian papyrus and the rest omit it. 
vatov: T eiyov MSS, The papyrus avoids the repetition efyov . . . yoy in 828-9. 

Irs. (Z) and (2). PVATE Vile 
I 277 [Hedwos 6 os malvr epopat kale mavT emakovet 
278 [kat morapol] Kat yaa Kat ot uTevepOe Kapovtas 
279 ?[ 24 letters tal 
280 [upets paptjypes ecte dudaccete 0 opkia alicTa 
281 [ee pev kev] Mevedaoy Adegavdpos Katalrepynt 

282 [avros ereO Edevny exeT@ Kal KTNWaTa TavTa 

283 @ [Apyos es tmmoBorov klac Ayaida KadALyvv aka 

284 | 

283 [nes 0 ev vyjecot vewpeba Kovpor Ayatwy 
ec de ke Tor Mevedaos A)ldAcEavdpoy katlatepynt 

285 [Tpwas ere:6 EXdevny klat xtnpat[a mavr amodovyat 

277. epopa ...{eraxover: so P. Brit. Mus. 126 (-pa corr. from -pas) and Sch. Apoll. ; 

épopas .. . emaxoters other MSS. Cf. A 109, w 323 "HeAlou ds wavr’ copa Kai dvr’ émaxover. 

279. Lines 277-8 are on a separate fragment, the position of which in relation to the 
following one is not certain. The vestiges of the line preceding 280 are not reconcilable with 
any letters from the middle of |. 279 as given in our texts avOpamous tivvaOoy ors x’ émiopKov 
épécon, but whether the papyrus merely differed from the vulgate in that line or contained it and 
inserted one or more new lines afterwards cannot be decided. The combination yaa x/a oz 
umevepOe kapo yra{s is not admissible. 

280. papriupes: so Zenodotus and a few MSS. ; paprypo Aristarchus and the majority 
of MSS. 

283. xovpot Ayata\y: movrordpac. most MSS. The line is not infrequently omitted. 
The new line inserted after 283 comes from I 258. 

284. The MSS. have «i S€ « ’AdcEavdpov xreivy EavOds Mevedaos. The papyrus reading 
simply repeats 1. 281 with the fewest necessary changes. 

Br: (2): 
T 295 [owov 8 ex Klpntnpos alpvoco{pevor deraeoory 
296 [exxeov n]d nuyovTo Oeots ae yeverniowy 


297 [wde de Tis etrlacxey Ayaiwy Te Tpwwy Tle 

295. a\pvoco|pevor; so Aristarchus, A (second hand) and other MSS.; ddvocdpeva 
P, Brit. Mus. 126, A (first hand) and others. 

296. nuxorro: evyovro MSS. Cf. p. 68. 

acu yeveTniow : alevyeveTy ow NMSSs 2 Cris 796. 

297. emlaocxeyv: the doubtful a might be 6 or A, but there is hardly room for even 
a narrow letter such as « between it and oxev.  eimeokev is uniformly found in the MSS. 

Fr. (2). Col. i 

T' 302 [ws epay elf[yoluevor peya O extume pyntieta Zeus 

302 @ [e€ Idns Bpov\rwy emt de arepomny edenkfe|y 

302 0 [Onoepevat ylap epedrdey eT adyea TE oTOVaXaS TE 
302 ¢ [Tpwot ve Kat| Aavaoiot] dia xparepas volulivas 
302 @ [avrap ene: p oluocev TE TeXEvTHGEY [TE] TOY opKlor 
303 [rowot de Aapdavi\d'ns| II piapos mpos puOov ceimiev 
304 [xexAuTe peu Tlpwes kat Aapdavor nO [e€|mex|ovpor 
304 @ [opp ew] ta ple Ov]uos ert arnbecow avialyee 
305 [nroe ely@y erye mpio|rt IdNtov nvepoecoay 

[olu yap Kev TAaLny [ror ev opOal\Apoiow opacG at 
[palpvaplelvov diroly viov Apnipitor Mevedawr 

308 [Zevs pev mov] tio] y[e ode kat abavaroe Oeor addor 
[om7roTEepwt Oalvarowo reNos TET P@LLEVOV EOTLY 

310 «6 [n pa Kat es Oifppoly aplvas OeTo toobeos hos 

Col. ii. 
325 etoopo[wy IIapios de Oows ek kAnpos opovaey 

326 ot pev [eretO iCovTo KaTa aTLxas nXL EKaoTOU 

327 [tmm[ot aepotmodes kat ToikiAa TEVXE EKELTO 

302. For this the MSS. have és fav ov 8 dpa ro ow emexpaiawe Kpoviov, which 
is expanded in the papyrus into five lines. The papyrus version of |]. 302 comes from 
O 377 &s epar’ ebydpevos peya 8 exrume pntiera Zevs. 

302 a-d. For the restoration [e§ 15ns Bpov|rev cf. © 170 tpis & dip’ dm’ "alwy dpéwr Krome 
pytiera Zevs and © 75 ards & e& "ISns peyad’ exrume. The supposed + might be combined 


with the supposed tail of the v of eju{xo]uevor in the line preceding so as to read |fov, but 
this arrangement is less satisfactory. em followed by efenxev is awkward, but the reading is 
almost certain; ers is inadmissible. The next two lines, |@ncepevar ylap . .. vo plas, are 
derived from B 39-40 Onoew yap ér eweddev ew Gdyea x.t.X., where Nauck had conjectured 6- 
o€uevae yap épeAdev €r, Which seems to have been found in the papyrus. For the stock line 
[avrap emer p olyocev x.t.A. Cf. Z 280, &c. 

303. mpos: pera MSS, 

304. Aapdavor 6 [e|mexlovpor: evxvnpides "Ayatoi MSS. For the papyrus reading, which 
is as appropriate as that of the vulgate, cf.1 456, &c. The line which follows, dp’ cima «.1.d., 
occurs (with -o1 xeAever for -ow dvwyer) in H 68, 349, 369, and © 6, being omitted in the 
last two instances by the better MSS. For the variant dywyec cf. 1 703 Ovpds evi ornbecow 

306. [olu yap Kev tray [ror: ay, émel o mo tAncop’ MSS.; cf. @ 565 od ydp ke 
Train Bpdros. 

310. duppoly apivas: the reading is very uncertain. Perhaps the papyrus had a new 
line here. 

325. europowy: ay dpdov MSS, The variant, which makes Hector behave in a very 
unheroic manner, is probably a mere error. 

Frs. (#2) and (2). 

I’ 337 @( 13 letters |rnr[ 
338 ? eiAciro 8 adkipa| dovpe dv[wm KexopvOpeva yadkor 
339 os 6 alutws Mevjehaos Apnia [revye edvver 
339 a aomida Kale mnAn|Kka daeivyly Kai dvo doupe 
339 b Kat Kadals kvy|udas emiod|upiois apapuias 
339 ¢ aude 6 alp poorly Badrero Ei pos apyvpondov 

° . . ° 

337 a. The remains of this line are inconsistent with 1. 337 trmoupw* Sewov d€ ASpos 
xabimepOev évevev. Perhaps the papyrus elaborated the description of the helmet in one or 
more new lines. 

338. Here the MSS. have efdero 8 ddkipov €yxos 6 of madaunpw dpnpe, with an ancient 
variant dkaxpévov 6£& xadk@ (cf. K 135) attested by Schol. A, and perhaps e:e[ro 5 aAxipa| 
x.t.A, is a new line altogether, |. 338 occurring previously. Zenodotus athetized ll. 334-5 
and inserted after 338 audi 8 ap’ apoow Bader domida tepoavdeccav. For xexopvOpeva yadkot 
cf. F 18, A 43 Sodpe dv@ KexopvOpeva yadko. 

339. Apna [revye eSuvey: “Apnios evre eSvvey MSS. For the papyrus reading cf. Z 340 
"Apia tevxea Sim. The three new lines expand the description of Menelaus arming 
himself. For aoméa kale x.7.d. cf. a 256 exov mydnxa kai dorida Kai 8v0 Sodpe. 339 0 Kat 
oe kyn|\uidas emop|vpiors apapuas== 459 (cf. F 331), and 339 ¢ ange 8 alp x.r.A. repeats 
- 334- 



Frs. (7) and (7). 

T 351 Zelv ava dos Tel|racOalt o pe mpolriepos KaK eopye 


352 div Alrel~avdpor kale] €[u]nes vio xepot Sapaccoy 
353 odfpla tis epprynioe Kat ofyilyover [avOporev 

354 (fetvoldox[oly kaka pefat o Tis PltAoTnTa Tapacxnt 
355 6n pa Kat] apmemadwy mpotet SloALxooKtov eyxos 
356 Kat Bralde [I]prapidao cat aomidl\a mavtoo evony 
357 Ova pel acmidos ne gpaewns [oBptpov eyxos 

358 [kat dia] OwpynKos moAvdaidalAou npnpetoTo 

359 ~©[alvrikpu de mapat AaTapyny dialunoe xlTova 

360 [elyxos o 8 exAwvOn Kal adevato K[npa pedAaivay 
361 Arpedns 6 aop ofv epvcapevos [mapa pypov 

362 mAngev emai~as klopu]Oos padrlov immodaceins 
362a@ xadkeins Sevov (be Kopus Aakev audi 8 ap avTnt 
363 [rlptxOa te Kat tleTpaxOa diatpudey exmece XELpos 
364 Arpeldns & wipwgev tdwy ets ovpavoy evpuv 

365 Zev marep [ov Tis oELo Oewy odAowrTepos adAos 

366 Te ehapnfy Tecacbar Ade~avdpov KaKornTos ? 
366 a doy Ade~alvdpov EXevns moo nuKopoto 

367 vuy Oe plot ev xElpecow ayn Eigos eK de pot eyxos 
368 — ntx[On] marlapngw etw@oroy ovd eBadoyv pw 

369 «bn Kat emarg[as KopvOos NaPev immodacelns 

370 etre O emeifyouevos pet evkvnpidas Axatous 

371 nyxe Se [yey moduKeoTos twas amadny vT0 deipnv 

This line was athetized by Aristarchus. 

Tis ; KEV MSS. 

gn 7 MSS., 1Cf. 1.360: 

nee: #AOe MSS. The use of few in such a context is not Homeric. 

For this line the MSS. have ’ArpeiSns 5€ épuoapevos Eihos dpyupdndov. The papyrus 

reading corresponds to @ 173, with the substitution of ’Arpetdys for InAcidns. 


. enakas: dvacxspevos MSS. Cf. 1. 369. After padrov the MSS. have apdi & ap’ 

ait@ (adr Aristarchus and ai yaptéorepar) which probably came at the end of 1. 362 a. 
For xadxeéy as an epithet of xdépus cf. M 184, Y 398, and for immodacaa T 369, A 459, &c. 
For devov |S xopus Naxey (suggested by Blass) cf. A 420 dewdy & &Bpaxe xadkds, and E 25 Adke 
dé ode wept xpot xadxds. 


363. After this line there is a break in the papyrus, and Fr. (7), containing Il. 364- 
71, does not quite join Fr. (7), but it is improbable that any line is lost in the interval. 

366 a. This new line comes from r 329. Whether the papyrus had Adegavdpov kaxo- 
tyTos in |. 366 is very doubtful. 

369. gy: 7 MSS. Cf. 1. 355. 

370. «Axe: so P. Brit. Mus. 126 and Eustathius. ¢dxce MSS. 

evel youevos : emeatpewas MSS. 

371. nyxe: Tyxev Eust., dyxe MSS. 

Fr. (0). Br (2): Fr. (q). 
in |. veer) pareve 
loavto d€ dal ] wept wr. | |uotouy Eki 
].[. .] de mAcoly 

J.-[ Ine er ). nyl p+. 7 exmr 
raz[ jo a. [.] [ 
Fr. (w). Fr. (x). 
Joe Bao . [ los epel 

[ic Ibo eels GH] 
yop. of... | 

Fr. (0) 2. Perhaps [npn|cavro d \alor should be restored, as Blass suggests, and this line 
identified with T 318 which begins Xacti 8 jphoavro, The supposed + in |. 1 would suit 
[ommo|rlepos, the first word of 1. 317; but after [npy|ouvro de Aaoe the papyrus must have 
continued quite differently from the MSS., which proceed Oeoiox 5é xeipas dvécyor' Bde d€ Tus 
elmeokey “Ayai@v te Tpdwv Te. 

Fr. (7) 1. Probably or\parov ; but the fragment does not suit B 207, 439, or 77190 Le 
is from the bottom of a column, as apparently are also Frs. (7), (¢) and (w). 

Fr, (w). It is tempting to read exmese in |. 2 with es in the next line and place this 
fragment at r 363-4, but the vestiges of other letters do not suit diatpudev and ovpavov, 

Fr. (x), from the top of a column, was probably in immediate proximity to Fr. (zw). 



20. - Homer, Shad I/I-V. 

Mummy Avr (@)73: xa cm. Circa B.c. 280-240, Prats VI (Frs. d, 7, 2). 

Twelve small fragments containing parts of 66 lines from Books iii-v 
of the /iad, forming part of the same MS. as P. Grenf. II. 3, a small 
fragment containing parts of 5 lines with no variants. 20 is much less remark- 
able than 19 and 21-8 for the presence of additional lines; only one is found 
(after A 69), and this is more than balanced by the omission of T 389, A 8g, 
where the papyrus exhibits a striking agreement with Zenodotus, and E 527. 
The total number of lines is thus two less than in the corresponding portions of 
the vulgate, and, though most of the 71 lines are represented by only a few 
letters, there are several marked divergences from the ordinary text, e.g. 
in T 388, A 57, E 530 and 797. Owing to the rarity of additional lines 20 can 
hardly be placed in the same class as the other Homeric papyri in this volume 
(cf. p. 69); but it is clear that it differed widely from the vulgate. 

The papyrus was probably written during the reign of Philadelphus. 

Fr.)(a): Golat: 

TP 347 (kat Badrev Arpeidao kat acmida travtoc eolny 
348 [ov 0 eppngev xadrkos aveyvaudOn de ot atx|un 
349 |aomd eve Kparepnt o de SevtTepos wpvuTo yad|kat 
350 [Atpedns Mevedaos erevgapevos Au malrpe 

351 [Zev ava dos ticacbat o pe mporepos Kak copy |e 
Two lines lost. 

54 [gelvodoKoy Kaka pefat 0 Kev gidroTnTa mapacy]ne 
355 [) pa Kat apmemadwy mpore SoALxooKLoy ey]xXos 

356 [kat Bare II ptapidao cat aomida tmavtoo eijonv 

354-6. It is not absolutely certain that the ends of these three lines, which were 
originally on a separate fragment, are to be placed here. But | followed after an interval 
of one line by |ony only suits this passage in Books iii-v. The difficulty lies in 1. 355, 
ey|xos, for the traces of the x are very faint and the supposed o is not joined at the top. But 
as no other letter is more suitable than o and the surface of this fragment has suffered a good 
deal ey|xos is probably right. 


T 383 [aluz[n 6 avO Edevny kadeouo te tyHv de Kixave 


Col ir 

mupy[o. ep uinrar wept de Tpwar adis noav 
xetpe [Oe vexrapeov eavou etivage AaPovoa 
ypln|e [Oe poy eckuia madaryever mpoceetrev 
etpox[ouar ot Aakedatpove vaterawont 

eipija — ““ — v padtota de piv gdideecke 

devip 16 Are~avdpos ce Kadew oikov de veecOar 
Kewlos o y ev Oadapar Kat dtv@Toict AEXEGOL 
kaniAer Te oTIABwv Kat Eluaciy ovde KE Hains 
avOlpt pwaxnoapevov tov y edOetv adda xopov de 

epxeoO ne xopoto veov AnyovTa Kabigev 


388. The MSS. have joxew (or foxer) cipia kada, pariora bé pw gideeoke with 7H pw 
eeisapern mpocepavee Si’ ’Adpodirn in 1. 389, which is omitted by the papyrus and is quite 

unnecessary since Aphrodite is the subject throughout ll. 380 sqq. 
mpooeetney in |, 386, it probably had padiora de pu didcecke in 1. 388, in which case the 

If the papyrus had 

beginning of |. 388 may have been €lpla noKEL Kada OF etpta ka nokeoke OF etpe emeckey Kaha 
(cf. o 316 cipia zetxere), though none of these suggestions is satisfactory. An alternative 
to this arrangement is to read ecpia kad noxer rpocepovee 6: Afpodity in |. 388 with another word 
instead of mpoceeirev at the end of |. 386. 

Fr. (4). 

A ig 

autis 0 Apyetny EXdevny Mevedaos alyoi{ro 

20 [ws epad a 6 erenvgav AOnvain te kat] Hpy 




mAnoiat at y noOnv Kaka de Tpweoor pjedecOniv 
n tot AOnvain axewy nv ovde TL €lizre 

22. e\me: the vestiges do not suit a very well, especially as the space is rather 
narrow for this usually broad letter. 


Frs. (c), (d), and (z), Col. i. PLATE VI- (ira): 
A 55 [et mep yap pOovem re klau [oluk [erm dvamrepoat 
56 [ovk avuw POoveova] eet yn [modu hepTepos eoot 
57 [a\Aa ypn Kat epov k\pnvat [mrovoy ovk aTedeoToV ? 
[kat yap eyw Oeos expt] yevos d€ por] evOev ofev cor 
[kat pe mpeoPutatny| texeto [Kpovos|] ayxvAopnitns 
60 [apugorepov yevent TE Kal ouvveKa] on Tapako.r(is 
[kexAnpat ou Oe tact per abavarjoicw avacole|ts 
55-6. These lines were athetized by Aristarchus. 
57+ k\pnvac: or| pnvac, GAG xpi) Kai Emov O€uevar mévov ovK ateheatov MSS. How the 

line should be restored is quite uncertain, évov ovx dréAeorov may, as Blass observes, come 
from A 26 mas €éders GAtov Oeivat movov 78° aredeoTov. 

Frs. (e) and (/). PLATE) Vil(Eray)s 
4 67 berm MmpoTepo|. uiwep opxia OnAnoacbat 



[ws epar oud amjOno[€ matnp avdpwy Te Oewr TE 

69 a [opce AOnvarn k\vdilorn Tpitjoyevera 




auvtik AOnvai|ny enfea mrleplolevta mploonvda 
70 [aia par es orlpalrov «Ade] peta Tpwas kar Aly]acious 
71 [mepav 6 ws Ke Tpwes vmepx|vdavtas Ayaclovs 
72 [ap£wot mporepoy umep opkia d]nAnoacba{e 

69a. For x! udd ‘arn Tptr\oyeveca Cf. A515 dpoe Atos Ovyatnp Kudiorn Tptroyevera, Considera- 
tions of space are against the restoration [opoo Acos Ovyarep x|v5« orn, and it is not satisfactory 
to make Zeus address his daughter as Avos Ovyarep. 

A 80 [Tpwas 0 t\m)n[lodapous Kat evxvynpidas Ayaious 
81 [wde de} Tis etnferxey tOwy es mANoLoy addXov 
82 [n p avis] modelos TE Kakos Kat dvdomis awy 
83 [ecoeTat n] PltlAoltnTa pet apdotrepoor TLONoL 


Eire (72): PEATE Wile 

A 86 {[n 6 avdpt txeAn Tpwwly Kartedvoced opi{rov 
87 [Aaodoxa: Avrnvopid|nt Kpatepot aryplnrne 
88 [IIavédapov avribeov dilénuevn nupe dle] t[lovde 
go [eataoT apd de piv Kparepat ajrixes aomilotawy 

gt [Aawy ot ot emovtTo am Alon'n[oto poawy 

88. nupe dle] rlovde : so Zenodotus, omitting |. 89 like the papyrus ; et mou epevpor | ctpe 
Avkdovos vidv duvpord te Kpatepév te (=E 168-9) Aristarchus, P. Brit. Mus. 126, MSS. 

Frs. (2), Col. ii, and (4). 

A 98 [au xev tone Meve|Aacov Apni(iov Arpeos viov 
99 cols Beree Ounblevta mup[ns emiBavT adreyewns 
100 aX(A ay otorlevoov MeveAaov kvdadipoto 
ror ev[yeo 6 AmolAAwu dvlKyyever KAUTOTOEML 

102 a’pywy mpwroyovey pegevy KAELTHY EKaTOUPBHV 

Br) — be Grente 1.19: 

A 109 [Tov kepa] ex Kepadns exkat dexadwpa TredpuKet 
110 [Kat Ta plev acknoas Kepaogoos [npape TEKT@Y 
111 [way 6 ev Alenivas yx|pucenv efeOnKe Kopwvny 
112 [Kat To pev ev kaTeOnkle Tavuo[capevos Tote yaint 

113 [ayxAwas mpocbev de calkea oyxe[Bov exOAor eraipot 
Fr, (2). 

E 525 [{axpewv avepov ot Te vedea oKkloev|ra 
526 [mvommoww Aryupniot Siackidvacw aev|res 
§28 [Arpesdns & av opidov edporta moda Kedev wv 

529 [@ giro avepes eaTe Kal AAKipov nrop ede|obe 


53° [aAAnAous 7 adeabe Kedacberons(?) vopilyns 


531 [adopcvov avdpwv mAcoves coor ne mepaly[rat 
532 [pevyovrwy 3 ovr ap KAEos opvuTat ovTe TlLg [aAKN 

526. After this line the MSS. have és Aavaoi Tpdas pévov éumedov otd€ peBovro, which is 
not necessary and may have come from O 622. 

530. Kedardecons vopilyns: Kata xparepas topivas MSS. For xedac6ens cf. 0 328, 
II 306 &v6a 8 avip €dev avdpa kedacbeions bopivns. An alternative restoration is kata kparepns 
vonelyns ; Cf. Schol. T on N 383 (kara xpatepyy bopivny) twes Kara Kpatepas Uopinys. 

PES (22): 

E 796 [pws yap puv ereipely vio mAaTeos TeAapLwvoS 
797 [aomdos apudiBpor|ns [rat Tepero Kapve de yetpa 

799 [tmmevov de Bea (uyolv [aro povnoev TE 

av 0 toxov Teda\ualvla [KeAawvEpes ai amrofopyvu 

800 [7 oAvyov ot mraid|a eoiko[ra yevato Tudevs 

8or [Tudevs tor puxpos pely en[y Sepwas adda paynrns 

802 [kat p o7Te mep piv] eyw [modEpLCely OVK ELaoKOY 
803 [ovd exrraipaccey| ole T NAvOe voogiy Ayxatov 

797. appiBpor|ns: evxixhov MSS. ; edxv«drou 7 audiBpdrns Eustathius. dozidos aupyBporns 
occurs in B 389, M 402, and ¥ 281. 

21. Homer, /had V/TI. 

Mummy A. Height 22-7 cm. Circa B.c. 290-260. Pirate VI (Frs. and m). 

A single fragment of this MS. also (cf. 20) was published in P. Grenf. 
II. 2, and was remarkable for several new lines. We are now able to add 
a number of other pieces, all from the earlier part of the book, and one of them 
actually joining the fragment which appeared in 1897 (cf. note on 1. 2164). 
That fragment proves to have been a very fair sample of the MS., for. the 
newly recovered pieces differ widely from the accepted text, which is frequently 
expanded. As many as 21 new lines are inserted at intervals between |. 52 
and 1. 66, one of the additions consisting of g verses. This extraordinary rate 
of augmentation is not maintained, but it remains high throughout. The average 


for the surviving fragments is about one new line in every four verses; for 
indications concerning some of the lost columns see note on |, 180. There are 
also a certain number of otherwise unrecorded variants, some of which are 
unobjectionable in themselves, though none is a definite improvement, unless 
éuyovro in l, 58 may be so considered. The scribe as usual makes occasional 
mistakes ; he wrote a small and rather curious sloping uncial hand, in which 
the archaic Q is conspicuous. A specimen is given in Plate VI, in addition 
to the piece figured on the frontispiece of P. Grenf. II. We should assign the 
papyrus to the earlier part of the reign of Philadelphus. 

Fr. (a). 

© 17 [yvecer ereO ocov eps Oeloly Kaptiotos amavTwy 
18 [ec 6 aye meipnoacbe Oeot] macale Te Oeawat 

geipnv xpuoeinv e€ ovpalvobev [kpepacartes 

aX ovk av epuvcait e€ ouvplavoblev mediov de 

20 [mavres 6 e€amtecbe Peo maclar Te Oeatvat 
[Znva vmatov pnotwpa) ovd [et pada moAAa KapolTE 

24 [avTni Kev yalnl Epvoaim avTni] TE Oadrlacon (Col. it) 
25 [velpny pev Kev emetta Trept ploy Ov|Avym|oto 
26 [Onoainy 7a de kK avTe peTnopa] mav7[a yevorto 


24 [{ 19 letters avOpwr|ov te [Oewy Te 
8 [ws edad ot 3d apa mavtes akny eyelvou|to ciwmnt 


29 [uvOov ayaooapevor para yap Kpalrep[ws ayopevoev 
30 [owe de dn pereeure Oca yAavxor|is AOnvy 
31 [@ matep nuetepe Kpovidn urate KpetolvTov 

32 [ev vu kat nuers tev o ToL oOevos olvK [emetKTov 


Frs, (d), (e), (f), and (g). : Coli: 

38 [ws gato pednoey de majrinip aviploy re Oewy Te (Col. iii) 
38@ [xeipe Te piv Katelpegev eros Tt epar ex 7 [ovjoplalée 

39 [Oapoe Tpirolyevera ptdov texos ov vu TL bup[wle 

40 [mpoppove prvdeop\ar eOehw Se Tou nriog exjy a 

4t [ws evmov v}r oxeogt TeTULoKE]ro yadxloro]6 [tlw 

42 [wkumera] xpvocaow €0¢[tpnici|y Koplolwvre 
43 [xpuoov 6 avjrfo]s edvve mept [xpor yev|ro 8 [ujuacbAnv 
44 [Xpuoeny ev|ruxtov cou 6 [ereBnoeto did)|pov 


[Maorigev 3 €lNaav tw 6 ov[k aexovTe mre\racOny 
46 [peconyvs yain|s ze Klat ovpa[you aarepoerjros 

47 [Idnv de tkave]u trodumidlaka pyntepa O)\npwy 

48 [Tapyapoy evOja de ox [relpelvos Bwpos re bunelis 
49 [evO urmouvs eatnoe Kpovov tats ayxvdop nrew 

50 [Avoas e€ oyewv, kata 8 nepa movdvy exevlev 

5t [avros 0 ev Kopudniat Kabefero Kuda yao] 

52 [eccopowy Tpwwv re modrw kat vnas Ayatloy 

4 lines lost. 
53 [0 0 apa deumvoy edovto Kapn Kopowvtes Ayatolt 
54 [pupa kata kdoias amo & avrov Owpnocor|ro 
ue 28 letters Jegeo . [. «Je 
545[ 16 letters peta Oe Kpewv) Ayalpujepvev 
4c [ompara kat Kepadny txedos Au Tep|mixeplav|ver 
54d [Apet| de ¢wvny orepvov de Iocedaw)t 
55 Tpwes 8 [avO etepmbev ava mrodritw wmd{¢olvro 
55a Exropa 7 [appt peyay kat apvpor)|a IToujAv Sapavra 
556 Awealy 8 os Tpwor Oeos ws TieTo Snpor 
55¢ Tpes T Alvtnvopidas ITodvBov Kat Aynvopa Ss.ov 

Frs. (d), (e), and (%). Col. ii. 
55d (n\Ocov re AxaluavT emeckedov abavaroow (Col. iv) 
56 mavporepor peulacav de Kal ws vopivi payerbat 

57 XpPNNL avayKalint mpo TE matidwy Kal po yuvatkwv 


58 macat O€ wiyovTo mvAat ex 6 ecouro Aaos 
59 ecole O ilamnles Te ToAus 8 opvpaydos opwper 
69 ot 6 o7e [dn] p €s] x[wpov eva ~vyiovTes tkovTo 
61 ovp p «Baldor plivous auy 6 €yxea kat peve avdpov 
62 xadrkleoOlwpnkiwv arap acmides opparoecoa 
63 emAn[vT adAlnAnioe modus 6 opvpaydos opmpet 
64 eva 8 [ap] oolyn Te Kat evywdrn Tedey avdpov 
65 oAAvyT@v z\€ Kat oAAUpEV@Y pee O alpaTL yala 
65a@ev 3 Epis [ey de K{[vdorpos optdeov ev & oon Knp 
654 addov (jwjov ex[ovca veovratov adXov aovtov 
65¢ adAov TelO\v[nw7a Kata pobov edKe Todor 
65¢ y. [.)7/ 

4 (?) lines lost 

66 opla] pely nwls nv [kat aegeTo tepov nuap 

67 Toppa pair aludgotiepwy Bere nareto mimte Je aos 
68 nos & neALols peoloy ovpavoy apdiBeBnKer 

69 Kat Tote On xpu[cela marnp eETiTaLve TadavTa 

70 ev 6 eriO[e] dvo [knpe tavnreyeos Oavaro.o 

71 [Tpwloy 0 Um\rodlapwv Kar Ayatwy yadkoyitover 

72 [edxe de pecjoa AlalBov pere 6 atotpov npap Ayatov 
73 [at pev Axatloy [knpes emt yOovt movAvBorepyt 

Fr. (@). 
180 [@AA ore Key dn vnvow emt ydagupnilot yevolpjac 

181 [pynpoovyn Tis emetta Tupos Ontolo] yeverw 

182 [ws mupt vynas eviTpnow KTeww de Kjat auTou{s| 



183 [Apyetovs mapa vyvow atu(opevovs] vo Karv{ou] 
[ws elmewv immowow exekdeTO Patdiuos| Extwp 

Be, (Z). 

187 [Avdpopaxn Ovyatnp peyad)ntopos H[eriwvos 

(Col. ix) 




188 [upiv yap mpotepoior pedt|p[plova mupoly €OnKev 
189 [owov T eyKepacaca mle o7e] Ovpo[s avwyot 

190 [nN €MoL os TEP OL Oadepos mroais| evyopale ervat 

Pr (2): PLATE VI. 

203 [or] de cor ers EXik[nv te Kat Aryas dwp avayovar (Col. x) 

204 modAa Te Kat xapievTa av de adic Bovreo viKny 

205 [et melp yap K €O[edoipev ooo: Aavaoiow apwyo 

206 [T]pwas amlwoacbat Kat epukepev evpvora Znv 
206@ [. . «uel 

Fr. (m) with P. Grenf. IT. 2. Col. i. PLATE VI. 

216 a [evOa Ke Aovyos env Kat apnxav|a epy eyle|vovTo 
217 [kat vu kK everpnoey Tupt Knrewt vines Ax{at\ov 
es pin emt ppect Onk Ayapepvoy|: mrotv[tja Hpn 

Bn 8 tevat mapa Te KrLollas KaL ves Elolas 

moppupeov peya gapos elxov ey x[ellpe maxernt 


219 [avTa@l TOLTVVUOQAVTL Bows OTpuva ETaLpoUs 

Col. ii. 

249 map de Ados Popa mepikadrdcr kaBBare veBpov (Col. xi) 
250 evOa mravoupaimr Znyve pec[eckov Axator 

251 ot & ws ovy eldovTo Atos Tepas [atyLoxoto 

52. peadrov emce Tpweror Oopon pr[noavro de yappns 

a52a Zevs Se matnp wtpuve dladrayyas Kvdec yatwv ? 

2526 ecav de Tpwes tu70ov dal 

253  €v@ ov tis [mpotepos Aavawy ToAdwy TeEp EovT@V 

Fr. (72). 

255a@?[ 21 letters ]. Keer[ 

257 Ppadporidny Ayehaoy o peu gdvyald erpamev urmous 


256  [addAa modrAv mpwtos Tpwor eAely av[dpa Kopvarny 

258 ~—s[ 

Tor Je peractpepbert: plerapperar ev Sopu mngev 

Jev odr€Opol 
]. evoror| 

J. SL). . of 

18. The line should end iva cidere mdvres, in place of which the papyrus evidently 
repeats maga re Geawat from |. 20. This is no doubt to be regarded as a mere blunder. 

22. Even if the final a of Zyva and pyorwpa be left unelided (cf. e.g. 1. 58), the supple- 
ment at the beginning of this line is shorter by two or three letters than in the foregoing 
verses. The difference, however, is not sufficiently marked to necessitate the inference that 
there was a variant here. Plutarch, De Js. ef Os. 371 B, has cai pyorwpa, which is unmetrical. 
In a quotation in Arist. epi (wr xu. 4, p. 699 B 35 1. 20 is placed after 1. 22. 

25-6. These lines were athetized by Zenodotus. 

27. The ordinary version of this line is réccov eyo mepi tr eipt Oeay epi tr” ety’ aOparer, 
but in the papyrus the letter after Jov is clearly r not 7, and, moreover, rocgov... beav 
would not fill the lacuna, which is of the same length as in the preceding lines. The verse 
therefore probably ended with avéperev re bewv te, and mepi 7’ eivi was replaced by some 
synonymous phrase, e.g. roocov enor Kperooov obevos >; Cf. © 190 76 Kpeivowy perv Zevs. 

28. Aristarchus athetized ll. 28-40. 

30. The v of Aénm has been corrected; the scribe apparently began to write a r. 

38-9. The vulgate here has rip 8’ eriperdnoas mpooepn veheAnyepera Zevs* Oapoe x.t.d. In 
the papyrus 1. 38 apparently = E 426, 0 47, and it is followed by the verse found also in 
A 361, E 372, Z 485, 2127. These two verses are not combined elsewhere in Homer. The 
margin is lost above both 1. 38 and the corresponding 1. 55 d, but if, as is practically certain, 
1. 55 @ directly succeeded 1. 55 ¢, Il. 38 and 55d were the first of their respective columns. 
This conclusion, however, produces a complication with regard to the first column of the 
roll, which if it agreed with the ordinary text would have contained 37 lines, or 7 more than 
the column following it. Col. ii of Frs, (Z)-(2) also apparently contained 30 lines, I. 73 being 
opposite 1. 55 a; and though a certain variation is admissible, this will hardly account for a 
difference of 7 verses. Perhaps, therefore, there was an omission of three or four lines ; or 
Il. 1-37 of the book may have been divided between two columns of which the first was 
a very short one, and the second contained several new lines, though none occur in 
what remains of it; or, again, the roll may have originally included Book vii. At the 


end of |. 38a, near the bottom of the final ¢, is a short diagonal stroke, which may be 

39. The supposed @ of @vpu\@ has perhaps been corrected. The vestiges remaining 
of the ends of this and the next line are very slight. 

41. ]. tutTvcKero. 

2. xpvocaow: xpvcenow Vvulg., as is normal. 

45. m|raoOnv: this form is not found elsewhere, the aorist being always of the synco- 
pated type emrauny &c. reréoOnv MSS. 

47-8. The p of @npoy is not very satisfactory, but as the » is nearly certain, and the 
traces of the other letters suit well enough, we hesitate to suppose a variation from the 
accepted text here. Similarly with regard to reuevos in |, 48, the vestiges hardly suggest pe, 
but they are too slight to be conclusive. 

49. According to the ordinary version this line ends warp avdpav te Oe@v re, in place of 
which the papyrus gives the synonymous stock phrase Kpovov mais ayxvopntew (A 75 &C.) ; 
cf. ll. 38-9. 

52. There is a break in the papyrus below |. 50, and one line at least is lost between 
1. 50 and the vestiges which we have attributed to Ayac|oy in]. 52. Between these vestiges 
and 1. 53 there were four more lines, as is shown by the height of the margin. It is thus 
necessary to suppose the insertion of at least 4 new lines at some point between Il. 50 
and 53. If Ayat\oy is right, they occurred between ll. 52 and 53; but that reading is quite 
uncertain, and they may equally well have been inserted e.g. between ll. 50 and 51. Their 
source is in any case obscure, for the passage would admit of many forms of expansion ; 
perhaps one of the additional lines was © 1, which was added before |. 53 by Zenodotus. It 
is possible that the loss between ll. 50 and 52 (?) is larger than we have supposed. But the 
column is already rather tall, and it is safer not to assume the insertion between ll. 50 and 
53 to be longer than necessary. The corresponding passage in Col. ii gives no assistance, 
for the break there occurs in the middle of a series of additional lines, the precise number 
of which is uncertain; cf. note on Il. 65 @ sqq. 

54a-d. 546 pera be...54d correspond to B 477-9. These lines are preceded in 
B(476-7) by as rods nyepdves Saxdopecv évOa kat €vOa topivny 5 iéva, and it is of course 
possible that topivny & iévac stood at the beginning of |. 544; but eva xa eva cannot be read 
at the end of |. 54 a, nor would the commencement of B 476 be suitable to the present 
passage without some alteration. The connecting link between ll. 54 and 546 must 
therefore be sought elsewhere. Unfortunately the remains of |]. 54 @ offer a very slender 
clue ; the final letter is possibly ». 

55. wmdd olvro: so most MSS.; 6m. Aristarchus. 

55 a-d = A 57-60, where the beginning of the preceding line Tpdes 8 ad6’ érépwhev ent 
Opeape rediowo coincides with that ‘of |. 55 in this book. There is not much doubt about 
the identity of 1. 55, although none of the letters except the r is perfect; cf. note on 
ll. 38--9. 

57. xpnne: xpecot most MSS., but there is considerable authority for ypety, for which 
xpnne would be an easy clerical error. pny, however, is itself defensible, since xpnia is 
attested by Hesychius as an Ionic form of ypeia. 

58. wtyolyto: aiyvuvro MSS., but &(e)éyovro is preferable as the older form; cf. the 
Lesbian infin. de‘ynv. 

61. The first p, if it be p, has been corrected; ovv cannot be read. Such an 
attraction of v to p, though natural, is unusual. 

65a sqq. The identification of ll. 65 a-c, which are found in = 535-7 (cf. Hesiod, 
Scu/um, 156-8), is due to Blass. The scanty remains of |. 65 d do not suit 3 538, nor would 
that verse be likely to appear in the present passage. The extent of the lacuna between 


ll. 65 d and 7 depends on that at the corresponding point in Col. i between |. 50 and the 
supposed vestiges of ]. 52. If only one line is there lost, not more than 4 lines are 
missing here, but the lacuna may be larger in both cases ; cf. note on |. 52. 

73. This line and 74 were athetized by Aristarchus. There would be room for two 
more lines in this column, |. 73 being opposite 1. 55 a. 

180. This line is to all appearances the first of a column. Since the last line of the 
preceding column was probably |. 75 (cf. the previous note), there are 104 lines to be 
accounted for in the uncertain number of columns intervening between Frs. (d)-(A) and 
(2). If the average length of a column is taken as 30 lines (cf. note on ll. 38-9), three 
columns would contain go lines, four columns 120. That the papyrus version was 
shorter than the vulgate is highly improbable, its tendency being decidedly in the opposite 
direction. There were therefore four columns between Il. 75 and 180, containing additions 
which amounted to approximately 16 lines. Similarly there must have been an addition 
of about 7 lines between |. 184 and 1. 203, which is again the top of a column. 

183. The majority of the MSS. omit this line, which is printed in small type by Ludwich. 

184. ardiyos | Extop: peovncev te MSS., a variant paxpdv avcas being recorded by U. 
The new reading of the papyrus is in itself as good as either of these. 

189. This line was rejected by Aristophanes and Aristarchus; cf. ]. 73, note. 

203. This line is the first of a column; cf. note on |. 180. 

de cou: b¢ roe (S€ Tt, 8° ert, 8€ tr’) MSS. 

204. All that remains of the « of xa is the vertical stroke, which could be read 
as an; but the second half of the « may be supposed to have disappeared, as the papyrus 
is evidently rubbed. 

204 a. Another new line, of which the remains are hardly sufficient for identification. 
There may, of course, have also been a variation in the termination of I. 204. 

206a. The vestiges of this line are inconsistent with ]. 207 avrov x’ &6’ dxadxoiro 
kaOnpevos olos év”15y, The doubtful p» is possibly an a, in which case « or p might be read in 
place of « 

216asqq. The discovery of a new fragment which joins on to the first column of the 
piece published in 1897 in P. Grenf. II. 2 confirms the restoration there proposed. For 
the line eva ke x.r.d, which precedes |. 217 cf. © 130 and A 310, where it occurs in a precisely 
similar context. épya yevovro is the common reading, but ¢yevovro, as in the papyrus, is 
found in two MSS. at the latter passage. 

217. vines Ax|ac\ov: if everpnoev was written in], 217 vyes is a mistake for vnas as in 1, 220; 
but it is possible, as Blass suggests, that everpyoOev was substituted. éioas vulg. for Ay{a\wr, 
with ‘Axaév at the end of |. 220. The papyrus transposes the epithets. 

21g. I: oTpuvat, €Tatpous : Axatovs MSS. 

220. wes evojas: cf. note on |. 217. ¢iovas is found also in Vrat. b. 

251. edovrok.t.A.: Cf. E741-2 Topyein xepady .. . Avis répasaiy, The ordinary reading 
is etdovO 67 dp ex Avs HAvOev dps. 

252 a—b. These two lines are not found elsewhere in Homer. The supplement in 
252 a is that proposed by Ludwich, Homervulgata, p. 58 ; for ¢/adayyas cf. A 254 and N go, 
where the word follows tpuve. But the verse may be completed in various other ways, e.g. 
f dBov Tpdecow évdpoas, as suggested by van Leeuwen. In 1. 2524 the papyrus has eway, 
not «ay as printed in P. Grenf. II. 2. cicay ... rvr@dv, however, makes a very unsatis- 
factory combination, and ecay may well be a mistake for eéav. In that case the line may 
be completed Aa| vaovow omLeo@ (Ludwich) or Aal vawy aro Tadppou (van Leeuwen). 

256. edely av dpa: or perhaps avd|pa xjopvarny, though this does not suit the spacing so 
well. The remains of the previous line do not agree at all with |. 255 in the vulgate, 
tappou 7 e€eAdoa Kai evavTiBiov paxécacGar. 


Fr. (0). This fragment from the bottom of a column remains unidentified. odeApos, 
which is the only certain word, is found nowhere in the eighth book; either |ev or jov may 
precede. In the second line either |. evoroy or |. everov may be read. The first letter is 
very indistinct, but does not seem to be ¢. 

22. Homer, Ziad XXI-XX//7. 

Mummy A. Fr. (c) 13-3 X11 cm. Circa B.c. 280-240. 

This series of fragments of the //zad, Books xxi-xxiii, as in the case of 
20-1, belongs to a MS. of which other pieces have previously been published in 
P. Grenf. II. (no. 4)1. In all there are parts of about 190 lines, a number which 
affords a sufficiently accurate estimate of the general character of the text. 
New verses appear sporadically, though never more than two are found together, 
and the proportion of them—at least 11 lines, perhaps 9 or 10 more, out of the 
190, or about 1 in 13 probably—is much smaller than in 21. Other variations 
from the accepted text are not infrequent, the more remarkable being those at 
® 426, X 102, 110, 393, 442, 462, ¥ 129. Cf. introd. to 19. 

The three books were written in the same hand, an upright rather large 
uncial, of which facsimiles are given in P. Grenf. II, Plates I] and III, and which 
is probably of the reign of Philadelphus. The scribe was somewhat careless, 
and is guilty of several obvious slips. A correction by a second hand occurs 
in at least one passage (¥ 129). 

Frs. (a) and (3). Book xni. 

® 421 Ka [dn avd n Kvvapvia ayes Bpotorotyov Apna 
422 Oniv ek TolAle“oro KalTa KAovoy adda peTEdOe 
423 ws gat AlOnvjaim de pletecovtTo xatpe de Ovpou 
424 Kat pa [...]. ooapevn mplos ornea yxempt maxetne 
425 nAace Tr\s] 6 avrov AuTO you\vaTa Kat didov Top 
426 [To plev| ap apdw ewe more xOo[ve movAvBorepne 
427 [n de ap] emevyxopevn em[ea mTEpoEvT ayopevE 

428 [ro.wovro. vuy mlavTes ooo. Tpwecow apwyot 

1 There are also a few small pieces at Heidelberg; cf. footnote on p. 5. 


429 [evev or Apyetotot palyo.ato KvdalALpotowy 

430 [wde te Oapoareot] Kat TAnpoves [ws Adpodiry 

@ 422. There are horizontal marks like paragraphi below this line and 424, but there 
is other superfluous ink on this fragment, and a paragraphus below |. 424 would be out of 
place. Moreover, there are no other cases of its use in this MS. 

424. kai p’ emevcapery MSS., but this is certainly not to be read in the papyrus. The 
supposed o before capeypn cannot be correct, and was perhaps deleted; or it might be 
explained as a blotted o, which would be more intelligible. Possibly emecooapern was 
written and the first o afterwards cancelled; empaooapern is unsuitable. There are ink 
marks above the line here, but they are more probably to be regarded as accidental 
than as an interlinear correction ; cf. note on |. 422. 

426. Oewe wore: keivro éni MSS., though some read mori for emi. For @ewe (sc. ’A@nvaty) 
cf. 459 Gewopevov mpos ovdet. 

429. kvda\ ipower : Owpykrjow or Owpnktotow MSS. 

Frs. (c) and (d). Book xxii. 
ee | ie 
Spel Pe ese 

77 [n po yepwy modias 6 ap ava zplyas €AKeETO x \epoty 

Col. ii: 

X96 [ws Exzwp acBeotolv ex\av pevos ovy vmexwpet 
97 |mupyw|t em mpouxovrit pacwny aomld epeoas 
98 [o]x[O@lnoas 8 apa eure mplos ov peyadntopa Ovpoy 
99 otpor eyov 7 pelv KE TUAaS KaL TELXEa Sv 
99 @ Aw@BnTos Kev tolipe ? 

100 ITIovAvdapas plot mpwros edeyyxerny avabnoe 

ror os p exedevey Tplwor mote mrodkwv nynoacbat 

102 vuKta mote Svodlepyv ote T wpeTo dios AyiAdevs 

103. GAA eyw ou midopny n T av modu Kepdiov nev 

104 vuy 6 ere wdeoa Aadly atac|Oarigiow eEpnioliy 

105 [aldeopar Tpwias Kale] T\paadals exeouremAovs 



xX 413 








X 197 


Exriwp njpit Binpe mi[Onoas wdrece aov 

ws [epeovarw ejuot de .. 0 afy modv kepdiov ely 
[avrnv ny Ay|i\Alna [katakrewavta veecOat 

n [av|r@t m[po moA]nos evkAEtals amoAccba 

[ec de ely aojmijdja] pev [xatabeopat opparoecoar 
[kac kop|v0a Bpiapny Slopy de mpos Tetxos eperoas 
[av]ros [tlo[v A]yiAno[s apupovos avtios €XOw 

Col. itt. 

avi pevey omtaja de mudas Aue Bn de hoBnOes 
IInr«dns & emopoulae moat Kpatmvoict tremrobws 
nuTe kKipkos opeadiy [eAadpotaTos mEeTEnvev 
kapradiulws] @pyn[oe peTa Tpnpwva medecav 

n d€ t vial Ola poBeirac o 8 eyyvbev ofv AeAnKas 
Ta'phela emacooe v{ 

[ws ap o y eplepaals cOvs merero tpece 8 Exrap 

[Toocak pv mpotrapobey amootp\ewacxey AyiddAE\us 
[pos meditov avtos Oe mote mrodlos meETET allel 

Ty v & avTe mpoceeime peyas KopvOaiodos Extwp 
AnipoB [n pev pot To mapos moAv PiAraros noba 

[os hapevn Kat Kepdoovyn. nynoalr A[O|ny[n 
[or 3d ore dn axedov noav em adAn]Aoiow tovTes 


249 [Tov mporepos mpoceeime peyas KolpvOaiodos Extwp 
[ov o ere IIndeos vie goBnoopat ws to] mapos mep 
[Tpis mept aotv peya II piapov dies olde mor etAns 
[Melvat emepxopevoy vuy avTe pe] Ovpos avwyer 

253 [oTnMEval avTia Geto edorme Kev 4 KEY ad]oLnY 
[@AA aye devpo Oeovs emdopeba rot] yap apiorio 

255 [MapTUpoL EgoovTal Kat EmioKoTro|t Eppor{iawy 

ov yap eyo o exmayXov aetkiw at Kely enor Zlev]s 

X 326 7 pa em [ot peyawt edac eyxet dios Ayidreus 
327 [av|rixpy 8 amadloo dt avyxevos ndvO axoxy 
328 [ovd ap am acldlapayov pedty Tape yadxoBapeta 

Fr. (2). Cola: 

X 3924 [kat tleOvnota mep Toca yap Kak epn[oat| Ayatovs 
SOS aleverees cs: Jw peya Kudos eredvopev Ex{tjopa diov 

Golf ite 

426 Exzlopos ws opedev Oaveeiy ev yepow epunuor 

X 441 [di7]Aaka mopg[upeny ev de Opova moikir emacce 

442 [alba 0 ap apdi[moAoicw exexdeT evTd0Kapotow 
443 [apge m\upt oTnl[oat Tpimoda peyay odpa medoiTo 
444 [Exrop|t Oeppa Aoerpa payns ex voornoartt 
445 [ 

446 [xepo] um AlxiJAno[s dapace yavKwmis AOnvy 

vn|mitn old evonioev o piv pada Tyre AoET pov 

447 [ka@kutolus 0 nx[ovce Kat olpwyny amo mupyou 
448 [rns 8 edjedLyOn yrfta yapar Se or exmece KEpKLS 

H 2 

r. (2). 

. . . . . . . . . 

X 458 fr flv €XEoK Emer ov ToT eve TANOVE pl\e\VJev [avdpov 
459 [adda modu mpobeecKe TO ov fevos] ovdert ELklwv 

460? 29 letters eal 

Frs. (2), (7), and (7). 

X 462 [avrap ene Skatas| Te mvAlas Kal] Tupyoyv tKavey 
463 [€oTn manmtyn\vao emt TeLx[eL] Tov de vonoey 
464 [eAKopevoy mpoobe\v modews Tlayees Se py immior 
465  [eAkov axndeot]ws Kotdas [em] r[nlas Axatoy 
Fr; (0). 
X 513 [ovdey cot! ope Aos €TEL OUK EYKELTEAL AUTOLS 


514 [adAa 7 pos T polov kat Tpwiad@v KdEos eELvat 

515 [@s apa elpn KAlatove emt de oTEvaxovTo yuvatKes 


@s ol pely atevi\axovTo Kata mToAW avtap Ayatot 

X 77. Whether the two preceding lines are to be identified as ll. 75-6 is doubtful. 
The traces at the end of the former of them are not inconsistent with a s, but the conclusion 
of the second diverges from 1. 76, which is rodro 8) otkrearoy méderac Setdvoict Bporototy. 
Before [.|veuy is what appears to be the top of a tall vertical stroke, like that of x, @ or y. 
Perhaps «‘e|v(?) eu is only a variant for méAera:, and the line, according to this version, 
may have run rovro oy) oixrustov Setiotat Bporotai Kev et. The construction would be 
irregular after ére .. . aloytvaor, but cf. e.g. Y 250 démmoidy wk elnoba Eros Toidv kK’ emakovaas. 
But it is remarkable that |. 73 ends with davein (so C, &c.; pavyne other MSS., Aristarchus) ; 
and since in the papyrus $a yew) is so suitable a reading and xadkw|c in the preceding line is 
quite possible, there is a considerable probability that ll. 74-6 were omitted. The three 
verses are not essential here; but they do not occur elsewhere in Homer. For another 
instance of omission in this MS. cf. note on ¥ 129. 

QO9. otpoe: a) pol (cxpor, 101) WESS sal nevton 1. 

99a. A new verse, not found elsewhere in Homer. The adjective \e8yrés only occurs 
in 2 531 AwBnrdv €Oyxe. Any round letter, e.g. 6 or o, may be read after the «. 

IOI. exedevey: though the final letters are broken, there is not much doubt as to the 
reading. éxedeve MSS. 

102. vuxra ore dvoplepny: vix8 tro Thy ohony MSS., ind Avyatny Et. Map. 5y 1-22. 
For the temporal use of wort cf. p rg mort €onepa, Hes. Of. 550 mort €arepov. 


105. Tpaas: so L; Tpéas most MSS. 

106. There is some ink above kaxwr[epos which might represent a correction, but is 
more probably accidental. 

108. The remains of the middle of this line are very difficult to decipher. «]uor de may 
just be read, but apparently not ror, which would be expected to follow. Possibly 708 was 
written ; but the papyrus may have been quite different from the common text here. The 
doubtful 6 before aly could be «. 

110. The ordinary reading here is 7 kev air@ daar evkder@s mpd Anos. The arrange- 
ment in the papyrus avoids the long syllables shortened in hiatus. amodecOac seems 
preferable to xev ohecOac; xev is superfluous here and hardly parallel to the other uses of 
# kev. avro, which is found in most MSS. (v. 1. atrév), was read by Aristarchus. 

113. |res is on a small fragment originally adhering, but of which the correct position 
is doubtful ; the reading is very uncertain. 

140. kapradipws| oppnoe: pyidios oipnce (ice C) MSS. 

141. t urai[Oja: 1. 6 ux.; but all the letters except the two alphas are very doubtful. 

142. enaiooe, éhéew ré é Ovpos dvwyer vulg., but the letter after enaooe in the papyrus is 
certainly either vy or p. Perhaps there was a variant paveew or paprrew, as Blass suggests ; 
Or exavooety May have been written owing to a confusion with édéew. 

143. The letters preserved are on a small detached fragment, which seems to be 
rightly placed here. 

197-8. The identification of these two lines seems tolerably certain, notwithstanding 
the discrepancy from the vulgate, which has dmoorpéWaoxe mapapOds Or mapaortas. 

232-3. On the whole it is more probable that the remains of these two lines are to be 
referred to 232-3 than to 226-7. The slight vestiges indicate that the letter above A had 
a vertical stroke, the position of which suits an initial + rather better than an 7. 

251. 1. erAnv. The error is easily intelligible, as Mr. T. W. Allen remarks, if the 
papyrus had dues, the reading of ai xaptéorepac (Didymus) and Vat. 10, in place of the 
vulgate diov. 

252. avoye: avjxe MSS. Cf. & 396 (P. Grenf. II. p. 6), where the papyrus has avwyas 
for the vulgate reading dvijxas. 

255. |. appovawy, 

327. The scribe seems to have miswritten the m of amad{o10, which has a vertical stroke 
too much; otherwise the letters must be read amo ad{ or ameda, but both of these 
readings are difficult to deal with, and the 7 would still be not quite satisfactory. 

3924. This additional line probably followed directly upon 392. r\e@rnora seems to 
be required, but can only be read by ignoring a tiny fragment loosely adhering to the 
papyrus and having a vertical stroke which gives the supposed 6 the appearance of a p; it 
may, however, be misplaced. Cf. 2 20, where xai teOynéra wep occurs in the same position 
of the verse. The latter part of the line is found in K 52. 

393. The letter before peya is certainly a v, and is preceded apparently by an 4, or 
at any rate not by ane; perhaps ny\w. npayeba MSS. Aristarchus athetized ll. 393-4. 

442. Here again, though the sense of the line is the same, there is a marked divergence 
from the vulgate, which has xéxdero 8 dudurddoow evmAoxdpos cata Sua. The verse 
may, of course, be completed in many other ways than that suggested in the text, e.g. 
eumAokapols ekeAevoev. 

446. xepow ’AxAdAjos MSS.; but ixd yepoiv is the regular Homeric phrase, and may 
well be right here. For xépo’ two in the same position cf. II 420, 452, ® 208. 1. AxAAnos; 
the same error occurs in CD. 

447. [ka@xkurolus : Kwkutod.. . oiuwyys MSS. The letter before the 6 can hardly be read 
otherwise than as s, and there is a spot of ink low down before it which suits the tail 

102 BiBiEdd FPAPYRE 

of a v. The accusative is quite unobjectionable (cf e.g. ® 575 ddaypov dxovoy), but 
the plural is somewhat suspicious, and it may be doubted whether this is a genuine 
variant, and not rather a mistake on the part of the scribe. An alternative would be to 
suppose that the line began with some feminine synonym of kokurds. 

448. Though the margin below this line is incomplete, it has quite the appearance of 
being the last of a column; but if so the column must have contained an unusually large 
proportion of new lines. L. 448 is only the twenty-second line, according to the vulgate, 
from the end of the preceding column, whereas the average length of other columns is about 
30 lines. A column which covers only 25 lines of the vulgate is, however, shown by a 
comparison of Fr. (f) 1. 168, which is probably the last of a column, with P. Grenf. II. 
4(c). Fr. 2, where |. 195 is the second of a column; and the more lengthy columns may 
to some extent be due to omissions; cf. notes on X 77 and ¥ 129. 

458-60. This identification is doubtful; 1. 459 is fairly satisfactory, but the scanty 
vestiges of the preceding and following lines give small support. Those below ovdex might 
be read as |val, i.e. pat|vald:, but something nearer the end of the line would be expected. 

462. The ordinary version of this line is atrap emet mipyov re Kai avdpav tev Gydov. 
Blass is probably right in suggesting the restoration of Sxaas re mvAas kat from Z 237, I 354 
Skatds Te TUAaS Kai pyyov ikavev, though the reading must be admitted to be very doubtful. re 
is satisfactory, but of the other letters as far as -ov only the merest vestiges remain. They 
seem, however, to support mupyov as against pnyov. 

463. retxiet|: recx/eor] would suit the space better. 

464. modelos: médvos MSS., though wéAews is well supported in other passages, e.g. 
A 168. 

513 sqq. That these lines are rightly identified hardly admits of doubt. The variant 
in ]. 515 causes no difficulty, and the absence of any division between the end of one book 
and the beginning of the next has a parallel in the Geneva papyrus (Nicole, Rev. de Phil., 
1894), A848-M I. 

513. If the indistinct vestiges are correctly read as ope(dos, the y’, which precedes in 
the common text, was probably omitted, since ovdey co amply fills the lacuna. y’ is 
absent also in D. 

515. &s €paro vulg. It suits the space better to suppose that the final a of apa was 

v1. Cf. note on X 513 sqq. The space between this line and the preceding one is of 
the usual width, but there may, of course, have been a coronis or marginal note indicating 
the commencement of a new book. 

Fr. (p). Cols i: 

¥ 129° [ 28 letters 

Jas exeA[evoe 

2 a ee Ire] - [-Jerz 
132 [av 6 eBav ev Sidpoiot mapaiBarar nvijoxor TE 
133 [mpoobe pev emmnes peta de vedos ejimeTo meer 
134 [upto ev de pecoior hepov IlarpoxXov erjatpor 
135 [Opigc de mavta vexvy KaTaewvoav als emeBaddov 
136 ©[ketpomevoe omiOev de Kapn exe Stos AyilAAEvs 


136 @ [apgorepyicr de xepot Kouny nioxuvle Saifov 

137 [axvupevos eTapoy yap apupova meu Alcdos de 
138 [oc 6 ore ywpov tkavoy oft odio weppad AyidrdAleus 
139 [KaTOecay apa de on pevoeckea vneov| vAlny 
140 [ev0 avt add evonce mrodapkns dios AyxiAlAe]v[s 
141 [oras amavevOe mupns EavOny ameklepato yaliT|nv 
Cols ii-(with, P: Grenf. 11.04 (ce), Fr. 1): 
¥ 165? [..--]- €[]eadrui. .] vexpol 

165 @ pupl{t ovetlata yxepow apnoal[pevor 

166 moddAa de igia [. .] pnl[A]a [Kae ecAurodas edikas Bous 
167  mpoobe mupns [edepov Te Kat apdemov ex 6 apa mavtov 
168 <dypov edov [exaduve vexvy peyabvpos Ayiddevs 

Fr. (@). 

WV 265 [Tot mpwrear atap av toi] dev[repws u|rmov «| Onkev 
266 [efere adun|rnv Bpedgios] nusovoy Kveovoaly 

[avrap Tw. TpiTjatar amvpoy KaTeOnke AEB[nTa 
268 [kadov Tecoapa petpa Kexalydlor|a devkoy er aviials 

Fr. (7). 

YW 276 [tolre yap [ologoy [epor aperne meptBaddreTov imma 
277 abavaro: te [yap e1or IIoceidawy de mop avrous 
278 marpe evo IIndnfc 0 8 avr emote eyyvadigev 
2782 ws Tw y abavaro. k[at aynpaot ovde EoLke 
278 6 O@yntovs abavaroior [depas Kat evdos epicey 
279 aA TOL pev Eeyw plevew Kal povUXES LTTOL 
280 Toy yap abevos ecOdAov amwdecay nviwxol.o 

281 nmiv o odwiv pada moddAaKis vypoyv €daLov 

¥129?. It is clear that the papyrus differed considerably here from the ordinary text. 


jas exe evo (?), which apparently corresponds to the end of 1. 129 aitika Muppideveror pirorro- 
A€wouoe KeAevoe, has been inserted close above |. 131 (?) by a different hand, and seems to 
have been originally omitted altogether. jas suggests Muppcdovjas, with a lengthened a, or 
some variant for qAomro€pour, e. g. ava Kdtorlus; Cf. IL 155-6 Muppiddvas . . . Oapnéev 
"AyAXeds mdvras ava kduoias. If this be so, 130-1, yadkdv Covvvaba, Cevéa 8 tm’ dyeopw 
€xaotov immous* of & @pvuvto Kal ev Tevyecow eduvov, would seem to have been reduced to 
a single verse. evr| at the end (the r is quite doubtful) suggests a termination parallel to 
TV 339 évre eduvevy, preceded possibly by re xa, though there is barely room for xa. The 
letter before e, if not r, must be a y._ But in the absence of the line above Jas exedevae these 
suggestions must be regarded as merely tentative. 

136 a. The proposed restoration, which is due to Blass, is based on 3 23 dydorépyar b€ 
xepol day koviv aidadéeroav and = 27 Hidnor d€ xepot Kiuny yoyuve Saifov. 

139. The vestiges of the supposed v suggest rather rt or z, but this may be due 
to smearing. 

165?. We give a revised text of this line, which is found in P. Grenf. II. 4 (c), Fr. 1. 
The doubtful p might be z or v. 

165 a, 166. These two lines combine with the last two of P. Grenf. II. 4 (c), Fr. 1. 
For the restoration pup{e ovecjara (Blass) cf. « g and o 316 dveiara prupia. In 1. 166 
a short space remains unaccounted for between «pia on the new fragment and the py of 
yy Aja on P. Grenf. II. 4(c), Fr. 1. The reading of these two words is not very certain, 
but we can find no other epithet which suits the vestiges, and pyjAja seems right. In 
the facsimile in P. Grenf. II, Plate II, wyAla «al {| looks possible, but the original shows 
this to be a less likely alternative. 

168. This line was probably the last of the column, though it is slightly higher than 
l. x41. Cf, note on X 448. 

278 a, 6. These two additional lines have been restored by Blass from e 212-3 ovd¢ 
€otke Ovntas adavarynot dS€uas kal etdos épicerv, 

280. rooy yap cOevos : rolov yap xdeos most MSS., but oGevos occurs in DGLS Syr., and 
is recorded as a variant in AE. roy, which is new, may be defended, but is unconvincing. 

281. This line is the last of the column, The final s of woddakis is very close to the «, 
and was perhaps originally omitted ; 7 was also first written in place of yp and subsequently 
altered, another yp being added for the sake of clearness above the line. These corrections 
may be by the first hand. 

For o most MSS. have és, but 6 is attested by Didymus, who refers to A 73, where 6 
opw was read by Aristarchus. 6 is adopted by Ta Roche and Leaf, és by Monro and 

Unidentified fragments. 

Pires), cs : Fires (@) eee : 4 
]. aoe peta 7 | appurl 
Jvoen[ }- u«rov . [ 

J++ vovror . [ J. Ao. | 

Ieepne « [ ]- nef 


- 7 



iten()oee et Ee (7) Se ae tee ss Bre (ze): 

eel |. 4 Jen| 
nv - [ Jerk; 
me S| Bo etal: 

Ee (2) Fr (4). : Fr. (2) 
jovral ] apger |. vende. «| 
Fr. (aa). Eee(G0)e race): 
rn - | A. . a Pea 
Brad). Fr. (ee) Beng) 
|yvoc . [ |vewor| Jackar . [ 

Sits. Ge) ne Ere (22); wens Fr. (22), 

Yaw J. vepe! Ipne - [ 
. aLojLevol 

Fr, (4). The most suitable place for this is perhaps X 117-20, but though in 1. 1 apdqus 
is possible, ], 2 is irreconcilable with X 118, and if edo in |. 3 were eA@pa it should come 
further out to the right. In 1. 2 « is possibly «, with which reading the preceding » would 
be a, and o may also be ¢; in |. 3 ev or ov may be read for o. 

Fr. (y). This may well be ay¢imfodx in X 461, but Fr. (y) does not actually join 
Fr. (7). 

Fr. (dd). Not ¥ 584-6. 

Fr. (gg). l. 2 seems to be the beginning of a verse, but this is not certain. katopevo|s 
might be read, but the fragment cannot be identified with ® 360-1 or 375-6. 


23. Homer, Odyssey XX. 

19 X 6-2 em. Circa B.c. 285-250. Prate VI. 

This fragment, containing parts of Il. 41-68 of Book xx of the Odyssey, was 
found not in mummy-cartonnage but loose in the debris outside the north wall 
of the town, where so many sarcophagi were buried; cf. p. 3. The writing 
is a delicate uncial of the early or middle part of the third century B.c., Z and Q 
in particular preserving a decidedly archaic appearance. 

Unusual interest attaches to this papyrus, which is the first early Ptolemaic 
fragment of the Odyssey to be discovered, and exhibits much the same scale 
of divergence from the vulgate as that with which the fragments of the //zad have 
made us familiar. This passage in the ordinary text contains 28 lines, but in the 
papyrus 30, three new lines being inserted (after 51, 55, and 58) and one line 
of the vulgate omitted (53); while in several other places also the papyrus presents 
hitherto unknown readings, the list of which would no doubt be increased if the 
lines had been completely preserved. As it is, all of them are represented by 
less than half of the total number of letters, and some by 5 or 6 letters 
only. Hence the restoration of the new lines is very difficult, especially as they 
differ from most of the additional lines in the //ad fragments in being not at all 
obviously derived from other passages in Homer. We are indebted to Mr. T. W. 
Allen for some suggestions, On the chief problems raised by these early Ptolemaic 

papyri see pp. 68 sqq. 

v 41 [mpos 6 ett Kat rode plegov eve dpeor pleppn|pli|fw 

42 [el mep yap kTewaipe Atols te oebev TE ExnTL 

43 [mane Kev vmexrpogvyo|ie ta [oe] ppagerOar avalya 
44 [tov 8 avre mpoceeime Olea yAavkwmis AOnvyn 

45 [oxeTAce kau prev] Tis ze] Xeperove Oapoer eTaipor 

46 [os mep Ovntos T ea}re Kat [oly Toca pndea «td. . 
47 [avrap eyw Oeos eluc dtalpjrepes ce [plvAaloow 

48 [ 13 letters  Jrov epew de ca egalvapavdor 
49 [el wep mevtnkov|ra Aoxor peplo|roy alvOpwrer 
50 = [v@t meploTaley K]TELvaL pe[pawres apne 

5t [kat kev tov edXaclato Boas kalt..]raf....... 
51@[ 13 letters Jeas an[ 


52 [@AA €deT@ oe Kat ujrvos €.[.|y emtk[,.......-.> 
54 [ws Pato Kat pa o. ujmvov emt Prepapoliow exever 
55 [avtn 6 av es Odvpjrov ameorixe dia [Oeawy 
55@[ 14 letters lpos pel 20 letters 

56 [eure tov virvos eluapmre [Av@y pedcOnuata Ovpov 
57  [AvotweAns adoxos 6] ap emeypero k[edv evduia 

58 [kAate 0 ap ev dexkrpojior Kabefouervn [uadakorow 
58a[ 15 letters ]JoOev axny exov o . [ 

59 [avrTap emer KAalovc|a KopecoaTo oy Kalra Oupov 
60 [Aprepidt mpwlrictov emevEaTo [dia yuvatkov 

61 [Apreue motva Bea] Ovyatep Atos aib[e po non 
62 [ov evt atnbecor Bladovoa ex Ovpoy [edroL0 

63 [avTika vuv n emljetta pe avapragiaca Ovedda 

64  [otxoito mpopepova|a Kat nepoevta kelAevOa 

65 [ex mpoxonts de Blada arpopplojov Qxealvo.o 

66 [ws & ore Ilavdapejov Kxovpals] avedolvTo OvedAdan 

67 [Tytor toKnas pelu POacay Beor at de Ad{zrovTo 
68 [oppavar eu peyjaporcr Kouige de dc Adipodity 

45. oxerAce kai pev ris te xepeion weibeO’ Eraipo MSS.  xepevow is fairly certain, though co 
is cramped into a very narrow space, and at the end of the line the tops of the six letters 
after ¢ suit rapa. The difficulty is the intervening word 6apce, suggested by Blass. 
The second letter is much more like a than A or a, which are the only possible alternatives, 
and the first letter must have been a rather narrow one. All that remains of it is a speck 
of ink near the bottom of the line. The third letter can be either « or p, and « suits the 
vestiges at the end of the word much better than o or 6; but the supposed o is more like 
o, and @apce is not very satisfactory, especially as this use of 6apceiv with a dative is not 
found in Homer. 

46. «[t5..: ofdev MSS. @ could be read instead of «, but not o. It is difficult to 
account for the e except by the hypothesis that the scribe wrote edes or etdev by mistake. 

48. |rov: ev mavtecat mévors (OF mévoicr) epéw x.t.A. MSS. 

5I. Béas cat ifia ppta MSS. kale after Boas is very doubtful. The second letter 
might be e.g. 7. «pla is inadmissible, the letter after the lacuna being either +, = or y. 
The supposed a which follows is quite uncertain, but the vestiges do not suit ¢, so that 
ac|re(ra is not satisfactory. The new line 51@ may have expanded the description of the 
prospective plunder; az| may be, as Mr. Allen suggests, az|aywy, but to read Ajeas would 
introduce a word not found in Homer. Blass proposes [avrous re xrew|evas, comparing = 47 
mp Tupt vaas évempyoai Kreivat S€ Kai avTouvs, 

52. Umvos* avin kat rb guddooew | ravvvyov éeypnocovra Kaxav 8’ bmodvceat j5n MSS. The 
papyrus, instead of this, has only half a line, but soon makes up for the omission of 1. 53 
by inserting a line after 55. The word following v|rvos was perhaps ewv, though the space 
between ¢ and » is rather broad for only one letter. 


55. ameotixe: adixero MSS. except the Monacensis (of the fourteenth century), which 
has awéorexe Corrected to adixero. améortxe dia Oedwv is the vulgate reading in » 143. 

554. Mr. Allen suggests [xouunoao Odvona ralpos pe pawra tavew: Cf. 487 mapos pepaviay. 

58a. The subject of eyov is probably, as Mr. Allen remarks, the du@ai of Penelope. 
The phrase axnv exov does not occur in Homer, tear, goav, guevae or éeyévovro being the only 
verbs found with dxjv. ovd|e, followed by re eurov (cf. A 22, 9 tor AOnvain dxéwy jv ovd€ tt eine), 
does not suit the vestiges after exov. 

67. pOeoav: On the spelling of this word with e« or « MSS. and grammarians differ. 

68. Kopie: Kdpsoce (Vv. 1. xjueoe) MSS. The imperfect is quite in place. 

24 Euripripes, /phigenta in Tauris. 

Mummy A. Height 16-8 cm. Circa B.c. 280-240. PrateE VI (Frs. & and m). 

These small and scattered fragments of the /phigenia in Tauris are written 
in a medium-sized flowing and slightly sloping hand, which is the precursor of 
the oval style of the second and third centuries after Christ. Though showing 
none of the markedly archaic characteristics displayed by some of the other 
literary papyri in this volume, the MS. belongs to the same find as most of 
the oldest pieces, and is very unlikely to be later in date than the reign of 
Philadelphus. The only letter calling for any comment is the W, the second 
loop of which is not raised to the same height as the first, but is left very 
shallow and has sometimes hardly any curve at all. The lines of one column 
are partially preserved throughout the 29 verses of which it is composed. 

In spite of its fragmentary condition the text is decidedly interesting, and 
its nearness to the age of the poet gives it additional weight. In ll. 252 and 618 
conjectures of Reiske and Bothe are confirmed ; and in ll. 587 and 621 valuable 
readings occur, one of them unanticipated, the other nearly coinciding with an 
emendation of Machly. But the papyrus is as usual not impeccable, and one 
or two small errors are found, while some other variants are more questionable. 
The division of the lines for the chorus (Il. 173-91) follows a new method. In 
the collation below we have made use of the editions of Prinz-Wecklein and of 
G. Murray, but in filling up lacunae have followed the text of the two MSS., 
except when obviously wrong. 

Fr. (a). 
174 Jo. [ 

175 Tmr0}Oe yap [| 
176 clues | 


177 opaxOeloa a TrLapov 

179 vpvjov te Alownrav 

180, 181 axjav dleorowa 

182 Opnvo.|s porloar 

184 HolAmas Afidas 

185, 186 matavoly oipfor] tov 

. 187 dlos oxnm|tpev 

189 evjoABor [ 

1g! Hoxaly de ey ployOos aooe 

Frs. (6) and (c). 





lovk av pOavos| av EUTpP[EMN TroLoupEevn 
[7odatrot Tivo|s yns ovou [exovowv ox E€vou 
[EdAnves ev Tov oda K[ou TEPAlTEpw 
[ovd ovou] axlolvcas [cba tev g~evev ppacai 
[HIvradns ex)rAn¢e6 arepos mpos darep ov 
[Tov ~vgvyoly de [rou gevov tu TovvosL nv 
lovdes rod oder ov y]ap [elonkovoapev 
[wos 6 eder avrovjs Kaviruyortes exdere 
[akpals emt pyy]uow Evéeivov tropov 
[Kat 71s Oadacon|s Bovkorolis Koworia 
[Rous nAOopev vi\yorres ev[adtat Sdpocwt 

[er] ov[y] [mr axrais Oacceroy Atockope 
n Nnpews afyadpaé os tov evyevn 

eTIKTE Tre|vTnKovTa Nypnidev XOpov 

addos de [Tis para.os avopiat Opacus 
eyeA(acely ev[yais vauTirous 0 epOappevous 
Oaccey papayy epacke Tov vonov ghoBar 
[KAvovtas ws Ovoipev evOade €€vous] 

edfoge 3 nw ev Aeyetv Tole mrELoct 
O[npav re rye Oewr chayla tTamiywpia 




kaly taide meTpav atepos iTV fevoly 
eo|tTn Kapa TE dleTIVag aYM KAaTw 
[kamectevagey wAEevas TpE“@Y akpas| 
Hlaviais adawev Kat Boat Kuvayos os 

285 II[vAadyn dedopxas tyvde tyhvde 8 ovx opais 

Ajidov Spaxaivav ws pe PovdreTat kTavew 

Frs. (¢), (f), (g), and (/). 

[Oerolis av [el Twoam o ayyelAat TL pot 
[rpo|s Alpyos «AOwy Trois epors exer didois 
(deAlroly 7 elvelyxeuv nly Tis oLKTELpas Eee 
[eypa] lev at|yuad@tios ovxe THv Epny 

[povea vopu|fwv] xetpa tov vououv 6 uo 
[OvnoKev] Ta tlolv Oeov z[ade dikat nyoupevov 


[ovdeva yap| €txov oortis [ayyeldat podrdwv 
[es Apyos av|@is tas e[uas emioToAas 

590 ae [cwbers Tov euov pirov Tit 

[clu 6 [el yap [ws corxjas ovzie dvayerns 
[xa] tas M{vxnva}s oo[Oa xous kayo Oedrw 
gwOnte Kale ov puclO[ov ove acxpov aBov 
koug[@|y €[KaTL ypaupatay ocwTnplayv 

595 [oluros & [ememmep mods avaykager Tade 

Frs. (2), (%), (2), and (77). 
Cole. Col. ii. PLATE VI (Frs. & and m). 

600 ovjros de cupmAe Tov enov pox|Oov xap{ty 
ouxjouy Sikatoy em odeOpwt T\wor Tovd epfe] 
Xap riecOat Kavtov] exdvvat Kakov 
v ar[A ws yeverOm Taide pev] deATov didov 
|s mepwer yap Apyos wate cot kla\A@|s exe 
605 nlwas 6 o ypni¢wy KTelveTo Tla Top Pirov 


[acxiaTov oo7is KaTaPadwr] ets ovpl[popas| 
[avros ceoworat tvyxavet 8 0]8 wp P[tdos] 
[ov ovdey nooov n pe pws opay O]edr\o 
[@ Anu apioTov ws am evye|vou[s] Tiv[os 
610 [pigns mepukas Tos Pirots T opOws] gi[ros 
[ToLlovTos Ein TwV ELw|y opooTopwv 
[oomep NedeuTTAL Kale yap ovd eyw fevot 
[avadeAgos epi] mAnV ooa ovx [olpwoa viv 
[eres de Bovder Tawra rlovde meu} youer 
615 [deATov depov|ra av de Oave[t mo|AAn de [Ls 
[mpoOupua oe] Tovd exovca Tvyxavet 
[Ovoer Se Tis pe] Kat Ta dewa TANGET aL 
[eyo Ocas yap] ryvde cuplgolpay [xo 
[agnda y ow] veave Kat ovK} evdlapova 
620 [ad\A es avayK|ny Kellued nv pvdakreov 
[aurn upele Kretvovoa Onldvs apoevas 
[ovk adAa] xaltny apge ony xepviyroua 
[o de opayevs Tus e tad] toro[pleey pe xpy 
[eam Sopwv twvd evorjy [ors] pedler Tade 
625 [tapos de mows de€eTla{c] pe orav [Barve 
[up tepov evdov yaoluara evpolm —Y¥ — 
ue Tos av pe aldedkpns xelp mepilorereey av 

. Haxpav yja[p] BapBapov vatee yOovos 


A fragment perhaps belonging to this papyrus. 

]- Hel 

174-91. This fragment is too small to indicate clearly the point of division in 
the lines or the principle upon which that division was based. The lines were longer than 
they are according to the arrangement of either the older or the more modern editions—to 
which we owe the highly inconvenient system of numbering four lines as if they were five. 
Perhaps the lyrics were written continuously like prose in lines of approximately equal 
length, as in 25. That hypothesis would at any rate account fairly well for the sizes of the 
various lacunae. 


174. The vestige after a would suit v, +, or x, and so the two letters may belong equally 
well to €av0dav, yairav, or Sdkpv’. 

175. The reading is very doubtful; tyAdoe yap MSS. 

177. opaxder'oa a is not a very satisfactory reading, since it does not account for 
a speck of ink between the o and the top of the supposed first a, which is moreover itself 
quite dubious. oax6\eca, however, is not a better alternative, for the « would be too far 
from the o, and again a speck of ink in the intervening space would remain unexplained. 
The traces before a rA{ would perhaps best suit an o followed by a broad 7 or, possibly, 
»; but they are too slight to necessitate the supposition of a departure here from the MSS. 
tradition—which, however, is corrupt in this passage. 

179. The papyrus supports the traditional reading, for which Bothe’s conjecture tprey 
7 ’Aowray is adopted by M(urray). 

182. Opnvo's: so a corrector of P; Opnvoe LP, Opqvocw Markland, on metrical 
grounds. The vestige in the papyrus is not indeed inconsistent with », but is more 
suggestive of |s 

189. It is impossible to judge whether 1. 188 sarp@dey otkwr, which is bracketed by 
W(ecklein), following Hartung, stood in the papyrus or not. If, however, it be assumed that 
these lines were more or less equal in length (cf. note on ll. 174—91) it will be necessary 
to suppose an omission of some kind between |]. 187 and 1. 189. 

191. The first letter is most probably »; os cannot be read. The line is metrical 
if diooee be written as a trisyllable, as it is in LP, which have 15x 80s & ek p0xOor. 

246. ovop\a: the papyrus upholds the MSS. tradition ; «yj Monk, whose conjecture 
is accepted by W. and M. 

247. tolvO: |. rout. 

52. Reiske’s conjecture xayrvydvres (so W. and M.) for the MSS. reading kat ruxédvres 
is confirmed by the papyrus. 

253. Evéefwvov: so Plut. De exil. p. 602; déévov MSS. Cf. 1. 125, where LP have 
ev€eivov and Markland conjectures d&eivov (so M.), and |. 395, where W. and M. read 
a&evov (with Markland) for ev&ewor (LP) or ebEevov (I). a&évov is probably right here. 

597. The MSS. here have OvnoKew Yé, TS Geod radta Sika Hyoupevns ; W. and M. print 
ObuijoKew ope, Ths Qeod rade, adopting conjectures of Markland and Pierson. The papyrus 
substitutes r\o\v @eov for ris Ocod, and before rov has a clear a preceded by a letter of which 
all that remains is a projecting tip on the level of the top of the a, which would suit y, «, or 
t. Hence, since 6ynoxew sufficiently fills the remaining space, the word before tiolv is most 
likely ra, which implies a quite different construction from that found in the MSS. We 
venture to suggest that the true reading is tov vépov 8 tro | Ornoket, Ta THS Oeod Tad Sixav 
jyounevov. ‘This is more logical than the accepted text, for the will of the goddess would 
have been ineffectual unless enforced by the law ; cf. 1. 38 ¢ OvTOS TOU vopoU kal mply mode, and 
1. 595 emeimep modus avayxater Tade. The substitution of 7 Hyoupevns for Tyyoupevou would be 
a particularly easy confusion (the papyrus shows the converse error of rov for ris), and the 
alteration of ra would inevitably follow. It would also be possible, as Mr. Murray remarks, 
to keep jpyoupérns and connect ra rHs Aeod in the sense of ‘the victims of the goddess’ with 
Ovjoxew instead of with rdde, @ynoxew probably had no iota adscript ; cf. 1. 249 exAnge 4. 

588-90, These lines are rejected by Dindorf and Monk. 

589. tras: so the MSS.; ras (7) M. following Elmsley. 

593. Though the letters of ow@nr are broken, they are all quite consistent with the 
ordinary reading except the 7, which is unusually cramped ; perhaps ow6)6 was written (cf. 
l. 247 rolv@). In any case the papyrus lends no support to the conjecture ovbyre KEE, 
though it may of course have had Reiske’s more probable emendation ood for ov. 

Fr. (@)> Gol. The final jy and |s which alone survive here, may belong either 


to Il. 573-4 povoly and Aoyorls or Il. 575-6 esdoou\y and yervnropels. The \ is opposite 
1. 603, which is the 26th line from the bottom of the column; Il. 573 and 575 would 
be respectively the 27th and 25th from the bottom. 

600. pox|Gov: or -wy, but the former is more probable. 

606. evs cup|popas: és Evpopds MSS. 

614. Perhaps mepmopev was first written and then altered to mepyouev, The upper 
part of the vertical stroke of is clear, but in place of the tip of the crossbar there 
is another short vertical stroke which would suit e.g. » or 7m. 

615. Oavelc: Oav7 MSS. 

618. tyade MSS., tmvde Pap., confirming Bothe’s conjecture, which is accepted by 
W. and M. ovpdopary, which is an unknown variant, is intelligible in itself, but does 
not well accord with the following line. mpoorpomny (MSS.) is more likely to be genuine. 

619. The space indicates that the crasis of kovx here was neglected; cf. the absence 
of elision in ll. 613, 625, &c. 

621. The new reading of the papyrus xrewovea is preferable to the traditional @vovca. 
The first two letters are much damaged, but the vertical stroke of the r is plain, Maehly’s 
acute conjecture @eivovea, though not actually confirmed, is thus shown to have been on the 
right track. 

622. The supposed « of gel. is above x of xarqy which would approximately 
correspond with s of ogayevs. There is, therefore, scarcely room in the initial lacuna 
for ovxovy, the unmetrical reading of the MSS., corrected in L to ovk. 

626. xao|yarais probably only a clerical error for yacpa r(e). It is, however, noticeable 
that with Diodorus’ variant (xx. 14) x@ovés for wérpas, the plural form ydcopar’ edpord would 
at least scan. But there is no ground for suspecting ydopa 7 eipwrdv wérpas, the version of 
the MSS. 

629. LP here read padray edxnv, & Tadas, doris mor’ ef, nvéwo" paxpav yap «.7.A. There 
seems to have been an accidental omission in the papyrus, though without knowing how 
the critical first foot of the line was filled up a definite decision on the point is difficult. 

25. EvuRIPIDES. 

Mummy A. 8X57 cm. Circa B.c. 280-240. 

On this fragment is written in a large cursive hand of the middle of the 
third century B.C. the favourite chorus of Euripides which closes the A/cestis 
(1159-63), Andromache (1284-8), Bacchae (1388-92), and Helena (1688-92), and, 
with a difference in the first line, the J/edea (1415-9). Whether anything 
preceded the chorus here is uncertain; in any case the fragment is probably 
a school exercise, not part of a literary manuscript. The division of the lines 
is determined apparently by their length, and in no way corresponds to the 
metre or to the division found in the MSS. of Euripides. At least two. new 
variants occur. The colon-shaped stop is found in 1. 4. 

[roAAat polpdiat tov 


datpfovijov moA\Aa 
T aeATIT@S Kpaltvou 
at Oeot : Kat ta Soxyn 

gavT ovK eTeAccO\n 


tov 6 adoKnT wv 
mopov eupe|v]| Oeos 
To.ovd ameBn To 

de mpaypa 

1. The restoration of this line is very doubtful: if the vestiges really belong to 
po|ppia, tov would project to the right beyond the following lines. [Aa poppa|e tlav 
can equally well be read; but mod must in that case be transferred to a line above, which 
would involve the inference that the extract contained more than the final chorus. 

3. tT aeAntws: & aédtrws MSS. in all five places, but 6 cannot possibly be read here, 
and aeAnrws does not accord with the vestiges very well. The traces before ras suit ce 
better than Az. 

4. Soxnzavr: Soxnbévr? MSS. The active is preferred by Blass on the ground that 
eSoxnOnv, apart from this chorus of Euripides, is a late form. 

7. evpe[]v]]: the » is much fainter than the surrounding letters and seems to have been 
intentionally smeared out.  etpe is generally found in the MSS., but efpev occurs as 
a variant in Hel. 1691. 

26. ANAXIMENES (?), ‘Pntopix?) mpos Adé€~avdpor. 
Mummy A. Height 12-8cm. Circa B.c. 285-250. Pate III (Cols. ix—xi). 

This, the longest of the Hibeh literary papyri, consists of seventeen fragments 
from the so-called ‘Pntopixy mpds "AA€Eavdpov, a treatise on rhetoric which already 
in the time of Athenaeus and perhaps even as early as the end of the third 
century B.C. passed as the work of Aristotle. The traditional view of its 
composition was decisively rejected in 1840 by Spengel, who endeavoured to 
substitute Anaximenes of Lampsacus, an older contemporary of Aristotle, as the 
author ; and with so much success that for half a century his conclusions with 
regard to the Anaximenean authorship were hardly disputed. In 1892, however, 
Susemihl (Gesch. d. Alex. Litt. ii. pp. 451-7) re-examined the whole subject, and 
in opposition to the generally received view argued for a third century B.C. 
date for the treatise. Hammer, who re-edited the text after Spengel in 1894, 
leaves the question of authorship undecided. The new discovery, as we shall 
presently show, goes far to overthrow Susemihl’s position and weaken his 
objections to the previously accepted conclusions of Spengel. 


Parts of eighteen columns are extant, but of these only one (Col. x) is quite 
complete, and Cols. iii, iv, vi, viii, xii, xv, and xviii are represented by the merest 
fragments, while the rest are all much disfigured by lacunae. The MS, 
falls into three main divisions, (A) Cols. i-viii, which are continuous, then after 
a gap of several columns (B), comprising Cols. ix—xi, followed after a loss of one 
column by (C), Cols. xii-xviii. In (B), which originally formed part of a small 
breast-piece together with 16, the surface of the papyrus is clean and the ink 
perfectly clear (see Plate III); but in the other two sections the writing had 
mostly been covered with plaster and is in parts much obliterated. The columns 
contain from 20 to 23 lines, which are decidedly irregular in length, varying 
from 20 to 30 letters with an average of 26. Since the columns lean over some- 
what towards the right, the lines near the top tend to project at the ends, those 
near the bottom at the beginnings. Paragraphi mark the commencements of new 
sections, and where these begin in the middle of a line a blank space is left 
three or four letters in width. ith ay 

The handwriting is an unusually small uncial with a tendency to cursive forms 
in certain letters, particularly N, the last stroke of which projects far above the 
line; Q retains much of its epigraphic character. A later date than the reign 
of Philadelphus is extremely improbable. On the verso is some third century 
B.C. cursive writing, too much damaged for continuous decipherment. Since 
this MS. of the “Pyropixy itself thus belongs to the first half of the third century, 
the treatise can hardly have been composed later than B.C. 300, and a fourth 
century date for it may now be regarded as established. This does not of course 
prove that its author preceded Aristotle, as has been generally maintained by 
those who support the idea of the Anaximenean authorship ; the contemporary 
papyrus 16 is probably the work of Theophrastus who was Aristotle’s disciple. 
But now that the antiquity of the treatise is shown to have been somewhat 
underestimated by Susemihl, and the terminus ante quem can be fixed at B.C. 300 
instead of 200, the older theory that the ‘Pyropixt mpos "AX€Eavdpov was the work 
of Anaximenes regains much of the ground which it has lost in the last fifteen 

The extant MSS. of the treatise, which all belong to the fifteenth or 
sixteenth centuries, are divided by Spengel and Hammer into two classes, the 
better one composed of the MSS. called CFM, to which Hammer added OP, 
and the worse comprising ABDEGV. The existence of considerable inter- 
polations in the treatise is generally suspected, in particular the introductory letter 
from Aristotle to Alexander, which has been long regarded as a later addition, 
and several passages chiefly towards the end, the true character of which was 
detected by Ipfelkopfer. On these the papyrus (henceforth called I), since it 

I 2 


only covers the latter part of chapter r and most of chapters 2 and 3 (about 
1 of the whole work), does not throw any direct light, but it shows clearly that 
interpolations do not extend in any serious degree to those chapters ; for, apart 
from an apparent omission in Col. xv probably due to homoioteleuton, there 
is only one considerable collocation of words found ‘in the MSS. which is wanting 
in II (1. 296, note), whereas in several passages II supplies words or clauses which 
are omitted by the MSS. As would be expected with texts removed from each 
other by no less than seventeen centuries, the number of divergences in II from 
the extant MSS. is very large; in fact two or three consecutive lines, where 
II is at all well preserved, seldom pass without a new variant. Upon the merits 
of these it is sometimes difficult to decide owing to the incompleteness of the 
context, but in many cases II unquestionably supplies the right reading. In 
particular several conjectures of the earlier editors are now confirmed, e.g. 
1. 3 n v7 avOpwrwv (n um evdoEwr) for 7) avOpd7r (évddEwr) (Spengel) ; 17 rovroy 
tov tpomov for roy tpdmoy todrov (Spengel); 117 rpittws for mepirtés (Bekker) ; 
121 the substitution of a phrase like def pedurrdvar (weracrareoy I) for zws 
(Spengel) ; 293 dveAOwper for dueAwpev (Spengel) ; 313 o vowos for vdyos (Spengel) ; 
317 tyuwow for toaow or eld@ow (Spengel); cf. also notes on Il. 23 and 27. Other 
improvements in the text introduced by II occur in Il. 30-1 avrov te tov d1a- 
yopevovta vopov AapBavew for abréy re Tov ayopevovta Kal Toy vopov AapBavewv ; 67-8 
Aaxedatpoviors ovppaxtay Tomoapevous for 7d Aakedayoriovs cvppdaxovs Tomnoapevors ; 
116 Tos Aoyous xpnoOa for xprijcacOa Or Adyw xpyjoacat 3 140-1 davavay didAoTiLay 
for éxovalay anacav didotysiay ; 219 ade for abrar dei (6€); 220 Katpov TapaTeTTo- 
xotos for KaipGv TaparenTa@KdTwy ; 233 the insertion of woAenovvres ; 299 e€nynots 
for edyyedois; 302 vrontevdevtwy for KabvTonrevdevtwy; 311 nyaptnuevwy for 
aduxnudrwv ; cf. also notes on Il. 35, 142, 148-9, 164, 197, 231, 250, 271-6, and 
especially 316-8, where a whole clause is inserted. The numerous other variants 
in II largely consist of minor alterations which hardly affect the sense; 
and though a text of this antiquity, written within a century of the com- 
position of the work in question, naturally outweighs in most cases the evidence 
of MSS. which are so much later, confidence in II is somewhat shaken by its 
inaccuracies. Not only are there several serious scribe’s errors, 1. 146 yevouever for 
mevowevav ; 160 es misplaced ; 162 kattou macy for kal rols mavoly 3 175 vBpiCovow for 
bBplcew ; 265 eorxos for eixds, and ov for atrod or by a dittography ; 280 xa for kaka; 
281 xap pev for (apparently) os (or ©) elpyxayev; 294 osotpotws for duovotpéras ; 
296 ovveotnkny for svvéotnker ; 304 exovtes for eydvTwy or €xovtos; but, to say 
nothing of the probable omission of several lines through homoioteleuton in 
Col. xv (cf. Il. 246-50, note), there are several places where II’s reading, if not 
absolutely wrong, is distinctly inferior to that of the MSS., e.g. 1. 72 ovrw for dée ; 


118-9 avayxaiov ... d.apvAarrew for diapvAaxréov ; 137 the transference of per ; 
170 the omission of ev; 269 the insertion of per. 

Compared with the divergence of II from both groups of MSS., the differences 
between the latter appear trivial ; and since the variations between the two families 
do not happen to be very strongly marked in the passages where II’s readings 
are preserved with complete or tolerable certainty, the evidence of the new 
find does not greatly assist towards deciding the merits of the MSS. As 
commonly occurs with papyri, the text of II is of an eclectic character. In 
seven cases it agrees with the so-called ‘ better’ codices, CFMOP (or most of 
them) against ABDEGV (or most of them) which Spengel and Hammer call 
the ‘worse’; ]. 108 tas aAAas against dAAas; 115 Tepe TovTwy evdexerae against 
evdexeTar Tmepl TovTwy; 178 oTepowevoy against orepovpevoy ; probably 223 avrwv 
against éavr@y; 279 Tos Aoyous against Tov Adyor ; 304 Tavtas against Tas adras; 
315 omws against dmws av. Where the MSS. of that group are divided II tends 
to favour CF (especially F) against MOP whether these are supported by the 
°deteriores” or not; cf. the notes on Il. 11, 35, 82, 86, 147, 191, 229, 244, and 
266, and the numerous slips in M, O, and P, e.g. in Il. 93, 102, 114, 145, 162, 
Ig1, 218, 237, 276, and 306. On the other hand II supports the so-called 
‘deteriores’ against the other group in |. 127 (apparently) dvore against 671, 234-5 
evrvxlay against evWuxiav, and 254 mpotepos against mpdrepov; and in three 
instances the ‘deteriores’ or some of them alone preserve I1’s reading in a corrupt 
form, |. 116 Adyw xpyoacOa against xpyoacOa (rors Aoyous xpnoOa, II), 231 dre 
mhetota TovTwy against 6r. ra mAciota TovTwY (TovTwy ote TAEoTa, I), and 241 
TOLOVTMOY SuoLoTpOTHS against TovovTwy (TovToLs ooLvoTpoTwr, II). On the whole the 
new evidence indicates that Spengel and Hammer were right in thinking F 
to be the best MS., but that Hammer, who pays less attention than Spengel to 
the ‘deteriores,’ somewhat underestimates their relative importance, since the 
preference of IJ, so far as it goes, for the reading of the CFMOP group is very 
slight, and some of the apparent errors of the ‘deteriores’ seem to be due to 
their partial preservation of genuine readings, which by a process of correction 
have disappeared from the other family. Our restorations of the lacunae are 
taken, when II provides no definite indications to the contrary, from the text 
of Hammer, to whose edition the pages and lines mentioned at the head of each 
column refer. 

Frs. (a), (0), and (c). Col. i, p. 15, 3—"7- 
[oly [aluros Aey_€ly Kal T\ov evavTt 

[wy avtos Kale Tov 70] kielKplejue 

[vlov n vro Oewly [y| ut avOpio|n[ov 


[n] um evdogjov [kpi]rjov] 7 vTo Tay 
5 [avtjaylovic|tov ni 70) HEV ou 
[dixavov olov €oTL mpoTEpoy nHpLv] 
[SednrAwrar To de opotoy Tet 61] 
[kart Towvde ext woTrep ‘yalp 
[Sicarov vopigopely To Tous yolyjev 
10 [ou meiOecOat Tov avjrov Tpomov 
[mploonKker Tov|s vies piper Oat 
[ra]s tov mlalreploy mlplalgers Kale 
[kaOarre|p zlous €]v TroinoavTas ay 
TEVEP)YETELY (dlikatov eoTLy ov7@ 

15 [rov]s p[n]oev Kakov epyaoapevous 
[nplas S[uxavoy eort| pn Brame 

[To pely [ovy opovov Toe [Su]katwe Tou 

zolv tov [tpomoy det AapBavev 

ek dle Tl@y evavTioy ypyn KaTa 


20 [paves moiety TO avTo Trapadely La 
[kaOarre]p yap Tous KalKoy 7L Toln 
[oavras O\kaiov earl 7[t]uo|[pjecoO[ a ov 


Two Klal Tous evepyeTnoav7[a|s... 

Frs. (4), (2), and (@). Col; ii, p. 15, 20-16, 7: 
4 lines lost. 

AlO qvacou kat Aakedaipovtor 
25 [dukatoy Kpivolu[o]: Tolus exOpous TL 
(popercOar To plev On Six)qov ov|To 
[periov mordrJaxlols Anne zIo Se 
vo plipov ajvTo pev 0 cory @ploTat 
nuwv [mporelpoy de 8 omoray [xpy 
30 oluoly ne avToly Te T[o\y diayopevolv 
Ta voipov AaluBavew Eira 70 [opot 
lov Tal yeyplappevol vopal €t\7 de 
[av rode wlamep yap o vopoberns 

[ais peyla|rais (nplais Tous 




Frs. (Z) and (e). 


KXerTovTas KoAager ovTw de Kale 
Tous e€amaTavTas padioTa 
euope se O}e\e) Klale yap ourfor re 
TTovol THv Olavotay Kat k[a0arrep 
o violuober|ns) KA[npolvo[povs error 
noe TOUS eyyUTATw yeEvous ov 

Tas Tos an[atow amobv|noKovow 

ovT® Twv zou amreAelvbepov xpni 
Col. iii, p. 16, 13-22. 

[yous avTa mavTas adikety o vo\wo 
Oerns expivey et yap Tipalo[ Oat 
ol vofol mpocTtaTTovat Tolu[s| KajAws 

tas Ondov ws Kat Tous Ta Snpoatlal 

[Kal Olkalws Twv Kolvov emioTaTycjar| 
[SiafOetpavras Tipwpias] a€{ 

GUS VOULCOUGI) . 7.2... « kak) 







‘Toy evavTiov To vout|uloy Klara 
[paves ovTw yweTat.... ex dle Tov 
[Kexplevov wde Kal ov povoy] ey@ 
[Tov vopov TovToy eveKa ToUT \ov 
[pnpe Tov vopobernv Oetvar adda] Kat 

MpoTepov ot dikactat Trapa|mAn 

Col. iv, p. 17, 10-11. 

Kat Tals ToAEolvy opfovoovoats 

M[pookKoTrElLy [Ln TTATLATwOL 

Col. v, p. 17, 11-25. 
Ta pe[v ovy ofola Twt ouppEepovTe Tov 
Tov Tov [Tpomrov petijov [7roAda 

Troinfajes ek de Tay elvavTiily wdfe] 





Frs. (/) and (g). 


(ro ouludepoly|] eo[rat] KaTapaves 

Tov mortTi@\y [oly[p\pepov av etn kar 
Tous] movnplolvs KoAagew el yap olEeo 
Oe [olv [ovlupepov eat 7/0] povous npas 
mpos OnPiaovs| moAepery cvppe 

[plov aly en Alake|darulo|yiors ovppa 
[x]ealv momoapevous] ovr OnBarors 
moneujerv [eK] pev On Tov evar 
Tiw[y ovTw To ou\upEepov Kata 
[plave{s] molinoeus To de Kexpipe 
[voy umo [evdogwv k|pitwy ovT 

[xen AapBaverw Aa]xedatporior 

[re yap AOnvaovs klaramone 
[unoavres ovpdlepery avTots 
[aunOnoav pn THY TOA\W avT@V 
[e€avdpamodijoafa|Oar Kat 

(radw AOnvator peta] OnBavov 

[e€ov avoikioar THv %\rapTyny 

Col. vi, p. 17, 25—18, 14. 

80 [ovppepery opto winOnoav tept| 

mlolinoat Aaxedatpoviovs mept 

plely [Tov dikatov Kal Tov voOpipou Kat 
tou [ouppEepovTos oVT@ pETL@Y EUTTO 
poles To de Kadov Kat TO pa.diov Kat 
z[o ndv Kat To duvatov Kat TO avayKat 
oly opoLloTpom@s TouToLS peTiOe Kat 
Tept fey TOUT@Y evTevOev evTro 

pinoopev mradw de Stoptcwpeda Kat 

[rept Toowy Kal Trolwy Kat TLV@Y EV TE] 

go Tlos BovAeuvTnpios Kal Tals €KKAN 

g{ais cupBovdevopey av yap Tov 

qlov ekacTa caps emoTope|Oa 




Frs, (g) and (2). 





[ous pev t\dtovs Aoyous avTa Ta 
t[paypara] KaO ekaoTny nyt 

TH[v cupPovjArav Trapadwce Tas 
de [kowas welas ek modXou mpoetdo 
[Tle[s emthepew] ep ekaoTas Tov 
mpalgewy paidiws duvy|ncopeba Tov 
Toly ovy eveKka SlaipeTeov nptly 
me[pt wv Kotvne BovdrevovTat Trav 

Tes [ev Kehadatw pev ovy etme 

Col. vii, p. 18, 14—19, 4. 

[etow emta Tov] aptOuov mpobeces 
[wept wv Onpu\nyopnTeoy avayKat 

[ov yap e071] Bov[AleverOar Kar AE 
yew npuas ev BolvdAne n ev Snpor 
TEplL LEpwv n vopwv | TEpL TNS TOAL 
TLKNS KaTacKeuns | Te[pt Tlwv pols] 

[Tas addas trodes c]uppaxtoly) Kat 
[ovpBoratwy n rept moAlep| ov 7 
[ecpnvns y mept mropov yxpnl|uaTtoy] at 
[Hev ovy mpoeces auTjat Tvy[Xavou 
[oe mepe wy BovjrAevoope Ola [kar Snun 
[yopyoo|uev exaorny de mpobecwy 
dteA@peba Kal oKoTT@pEY EV ols 
Tpomrols mept TouTwy evdexeTat 

Tots Aoyos xpnoOar wept pev [ovr 
lepov TpiTT@s [a|vayKallov rE 

ye n yap epoupey ws avayk\altov 
Ta KabeoTara Siva]pudarrew 

N WS EL TO pEeyadompeETEaTeE 

pov peTaotateov n ws emt to Ta{Ta} 
MELVOTEPOY oTan pev ovy AEyYw 

pev ws de ta Kabectatra dSiadv 


Frs. (g) and (A). 




Frs. (2) and (). 





Col. viii, p. 19, 5-10. 

Aar[TEL evpnoopey adhoppas ek pev 
rou [dtkatov SuoTl Tapa Tact Ta Ta 
tpia [€On mapaBawew adicov eort 
avO|pwmros mpooraTTel KaTa TH 
mat\pia movecba tas Ovoras 
Kat T[wy MpwTwVY OLKLCoVT@Y 
zals models Kat Tols Oeows idpu 

10 lines lost. 

Col. ix, ‘p. 22, 3-17. PLATE TIT. 
etn ovddnBonly de det mapapvdat 

[Tew omws of pev| vopoe To mAnNOos 
[amrorpeovar Tos Tas ovglas EXovol 
[emiBovrevery Tolls de mAovToVoLY 

[ews Tas Kowas detlroupyias damavav 
[piArortptay Epmoltnoovaty TovTO 

[de ovras av Tis mlapacKkevaceley EL 

[Tols pev Tas ovol|as EXovolY aVTL 

T@WVY ELS TO KOLVOV djaTravopevev TL 

[mat Ties aro T\wv vopwy adwpt 
[opleviae tulyxalvorely tov de yevope 
[vw|y tolus t]nv x[wpav ep|yagopuevous 
[re] Kae Tous [vaurikolus paddov 

[Tor] ayloparjaly MpoTi|uav ovTw yap 
[oc prev mouTouvTes e]kovTes TNL 

[woAee AeLTovpynoova|y To de TAH 

[0s ov ovkoparvtias ad}A epyaoias eml 

lupin cet nye usta vise: lv Kat mept Tov 


Fr. (2). 

Fr. (2); 




[ENTE Xxwpav avadacTlov trove 
[unre Snpeverv tas olvotas Tov 

[ 15 letters ajavTev .oy[v 
[pous KetoOar vopuous Kat [pe}yadas 

Colin pi22,.1 7-934.) PEATE III. 

emikeloOat Tipmplas Tos Tapa 
Bawovow ravra xpn Kat Tos ev 
Onpociov Xwpiov ey Kadwt po TNS 
ToAews adwpicOat Katto. macw av 
Tov ews nBynowot eis Tpopny Sdovat 
Top pev ovy ev Tas SnpoKxpariats 
vouwv TolavTnv dec thv Cec 
moveccOat  mept de Tas oAryapxias 




Tas pev apxas det Tovs vopous 
KaTavepelv e€ toov Tact Tos THs 

6 evar Tas mAELoTAaS KANnpwTas 
tas de peylotas Kpugaiar dor 
pe) opkwv Kat TELaTNS axpiBer 
as dlvayngiotas dec de kat tas ¢n 
pas ev Tals oALtyapxtalts| peys 
aras emkeibat Tos vBpigovow 
[70] yap mAnOos ovyx ovTw Tay ap 


Cole xip. 29, 4-17... PEATE TIE. 
exet Bapews v[Bpropevov yxpn de 
[rTlas dvagopas tay moAiTwy ott 
(gla toma OLONVIELY M0, 5,5 sls) oe 
Kal ‘En [oluvayley ex TNS yopas 
Tov oxAloy els Tv ToAW eK yap Tov 



ToLouvTa|y culyoidwy svaTpepeTat 
185 Ta mwAnO[n Kat [KaTaAver Tas OAL 

yapxias Kablodoly de eve der 

em prev Tats Onpokpariais KwdAveELy 

Tous MWoAlAous Tals Tov TAOVTLwY 

ovotais em Bovdrevery ev de Tals 
190 oALyapyx als amoTpETrELY TOUS 


uBpigew tious acbevertepous 

Kat ovkopalvTety Tous moAiTas wv 

pev ovy ope yerOat det Tous vopous 
195 Kat Ty\v| WLOALTIKNY KaTacKEV 

nv €K TO|UT@Y OUK ayvonoels 

ee de curlayopevovTa pev vopot 
Setkvur|at TovTOV Loov ovTa TOLS 

MOALT als opoAoyoupeEvoy TE 

Pre(2): Col. xii, p. 24, 14-19. 

200 [kal mAnoloy TO LS TOT OLS! kar(ol 
[kouvtas et d€ pn| TovT@Y amep jay v 
[mapxyne cvvayel|y [otaly dje| dvaxwdv 

[nis THY ovppayxtay eludavigev 

205 [K avaykn TroteicOal| vey avTny 

femreiO ws ov dikalot Tuyx|avovoly ov7ies| 

Frs. (2), (72), (7), and (0), Col. xiii, p. 24, 19—25, 8. 

[e8 ws| m[poTepovy nas Kakws TolN 

[oalvres | 14 letters « de py 

[ws| pakplayv Tols TomOls amexoVTES 
210 Kat a duvarol ovTes KATA TOVS TpoTH 

[kov tas mapayevecOat Kalpouvs Tals 

[HJev olvy 18 letters €ouv 



Tals Tept Tov cuppay|wyv EK ToUvTwY 
[K\ae T|@v TovTols opo.o|rpomwy evi0 
[P\noouler xpnoOar wept mroA€epou 

~ [dle Kae e[elpyiyns tov) avrov tpomor 


ir. (0). 


Tals peyliloras] Weas eyAaBoper 
[mplopacels pev] ovy ecw Tov modEpoy 
[exepew Mpos TL\vas ade mpore 

[poly adcixn[Oevras] vuy Katpov mapa 
TemT|@KOTOS apvvacbat Tous 
[ad\txlov\ytias  vuv adiKovpevous umep 
avTwv molAcuely n UTEP avyyEevor 7 
[vjrep e[vepyeroy n ovppayos 
ad\tkjovpelvors BonOew 1 tov rnt 
Trol|Ajec ovplpepovTos evexey n els 

Col. xiv, p. 25, 10-18. 

2 lines lost. 
[emt] TO TroAewElY Tapakadwpey Tov 

[Tov] Te tlolv mpohpacewy ore miAELoTAS 

‘ws| e€ wy eotiy mepiyever bar Tor 


Tapakadrovpevors eote uml a|p| yovTa 



TeplywvovTat O€ mavTes Tod epouy 

Tes n Ola Thy Tov Oewy evvoray [nv ev 
Tuxtav nes] KlalNolv[pely [n dia copa 
Tov mAnOos [kat pwuny n Sia xpn 
Hatoy {evropiav n dia orpatn 

you dipovnow yn dia cuppaxov 

EPET NV. I) Ole TOTO). 26 al. alee 
euguliav TovTwy ovy Kal Tov 

yHaolw oKeorata AapBa 


Fr. (9). 






Col. xv, p. 29, 15—30, 8. 

[parvovrar pegovs ojrav mpo [Blpax|y 
[Tepovs mapactwow €oTat Oe Kall 

[wde avgew ec Kexpi\rale pleya 

(CIOL OD Bean Gore co 1. pelya..- 
i 48 letters |v -[-]- |. -] 
Veet. ete 

; : 

| 24 ” IPOaD 

L. 25 oa ae 

‘ex Ovavoras ovpBiBa\fov (ws) 
(ex moAAou mpoevonaev ws Tro\AAwv 
‘emeBadeTo ws moAUY yxpovoy e|\mpa 


‘Trev ws ovders addos T\poreEpos 
[rovrwoy empage peO wv olvders ar 
‘Nos ws emt TouTols ped ovs ov, 
‘ders ETEPOS wS EKwY ws €E|K TPO 
(volas ws €l TavTES... . Tolot|MeV 
‘evdalpovolmey av n TpaTTotm ev 
‘pavriws  ypn de Kal et\xagjoly 
‘Ta ovpBiBagerw Kat emotkodopovrTa| 
[To erepoy ws emt To ETEpov augetly 

[Tporrat Towide oa7is Oe Tov gidov] Kn 

Col-exvi, p: 3070-25: 

derat eolkos Kat Tous yovelis] TLwav ov 
ofa}ris de [rlou[s] ylolvers Tip as] ovros 
kat Thv maltpida thy [eavtjov Ploy 
An[olerar eu morev avddAnBdnv 6} eav 
fev mod\A@[v aiTiov atopaivyts «€ 

av T alyja[@la[v cay TE Kakov pleyada 

gaverrat  o[komew de... .|r[.]uer 


TOTEpov peElfov Pailvevat To mpla 

YH@ Kata pepn diatpovylevoy n K]a 

BolAoly Aeyopevoy olmjor epws av ojvy 
275 pelfov nl TovToyv Toy T plomrov av 

To de reyerv — tals] per ‘oluy avén 


HeyloTas moinoes tlal\rewvwces 

de Tos oyos Kat Tayalba. Kal Ta 
280 Ka Tov evayTioy Tpomoy HETLOV 
CUPNTELS KAM pev ETL Tom peEeya 
Aev Kat parila ta pev pndevos 
aitiov emideckvuery et de pn ws eda 
X!OT@Y Kat piKpoTaTay (ws pe 
285 v ouv eykopltalfovres kale wWleyovres 

Fr (2). Col. xvii, p. 30, 21—31, 8. 

avénoopuev kat] Tamewoooper amr €p 
av exfepopey eK TovT@Y Lope 
 Xprlowat [de] tov avénoewy eo at 
[a]plopyat Kau ev] To[t|s adAos ecdeciy ar 
290 Aa [n mretaTn] Svvapis ev ros ey 
Kwp[tols kat Tolis yoyo ear aut[ats 
m[elpt ev ovy tovrwy evrevbev 
eumopnoouey — dewey dle 
 madw rovros opot|plomas ro [re 
795 KaTnYyopiKov Kat amoNloytkoly ed[o's 
e€ wy cuvestnkny Kat [w]s avros 
det xpyo[O]ac ere Se To Hev Karnyo 
pixov auddAnBonv eure adixn 
HaT@v Kal apaptnpatiwy)] e~nynots 

300 70 3 amodoyikoy adiknuatov 
Kat apaptnpatwy Karn ylopn 
Oevrwy y vmorrevOevtay Sta 
Avois exarepov de tlaly edav 



tals dluvapes tavtas ex[olyres Tov 
305 KalTnyopovvTa| tlojur..|.. avaly 

kaltov Aeyev oTav| pev [ets movnptiay 

Fr. (2). Col. xviii, p. 31, 14-20. 

T|o m7apaTnpew Tovs KaTnyo| 
povvTas emt trolols [T@y KaTN 
yopnpateyv ot [vomot Tas Tip@ 
310 plas TaTTO|volvy Kal Teplt a 
Tov nuapT|npevov ot dikacTat 
Tas (nplals opifovoly oTay pe 
vy ouvv 0 vopuos d[t|@plikws nu TovTo 
det povoy okore [Tov KaTnyo 
315 ploly oms emidegé|ne To mpaypa 
yeyevnpev[oly (oray 6 ot dikacrat 

Tlu@olY TpwlTov Mev avayKn 

lem\dergar Ta Kat|nyopovpeva 

Fr. (7). Fr. (s). | Fr. (2) 

vOn/ \Katra| pr. .[ 

1-5. (opor)o|y x.7.A.: the whole sentence in the MSS. runs eimopyooper 5€ rept rovrav 
Aéyew e& aitav te Tov Tpoeipnuévwy Kal T@v dpoiwy TovTOLs Kal TOY evaytiy avtois Kal Tov Ady 
kexptpevov id Ocdv i) avOparwyv evdiEwr i) bd Kpit@v f) Ud TOY avrayonotay nui. The papyrus 
(11) exhibits several variations. Aeyew is placed later in the sentence, after opoww|y [alvrors, 
which, owing to considerations of space, is more likely to have stood in the text than 
opow|y [rolurors. Possibly xax should be restored in place of xa in]. 1, but the supplement 
is already rather long for the lacuna. Before vo @ewy II inserts n, and before avépeorev 
adds vm, while evdo€wv is transferred from avépwrey to xpirov, whether um evdoElov [xptlr[or] 
is read, as we propose, or vo |[xpir|ov {evdoé\or, which is also possible if the supposed 
r is regarded as ink that has come off from a different layer in the cartonnage. The 
transfer of the epithet is an improvement; cf. 1. 72, where I has vumo [evdofov x\prrov in 
place of in’ évddéwv of the MSS. in a passage which develops in detail the general statement 
in 1. 4. dvOparev by itself makes a better antithesis to de@yv than avOparev evddgor, and 
Spengel (p. 111) had already remarked that 4 bird Oey 7 irs dvOporev would be expected 
—which is what I actually has. 


g. to: om. MSS. 

II. rojv|s v[tets pypecoOac: so Hammer with CFM and the deteriores; pupetoPa rors 
viovs OP Ald. 

15. kakxoy epyagapevous |[nplas: jas Kaxdv épyacapévovs MSS. except V which has kaxdv 
nas €pryacapevovs. 

17. t\»v[to\y tov [rporov: tov tpdmov trotrov MSS. Spengel had already proposed to 
place rotrov first. 

22. ovre xa): So Hammer following Spengel; the MSS. place otro after evepyery- 
gavras. The reading of the papyrus is not quite certain. Lines 21, 22, and 23 as far as 
gav7| are on a separate fragment (c), and the exact position of the two parts Ofelia 23 
cannot be determined by external evidence. Adopting the arrangement in the text, 
according to which only a is supposed to be lost between cavz{ and |o ie , it is necessary 
to supply ovra between T[t |u| p| er at and kat, as evepyernaavt| als OUT@ femnot be read. 
But a difficulty is caused by the last three letters of the line : the surface of the papyrus 
is much damaged at this point, and it is hard to distinguish the original ink from 
what has come off from a different layer. The vestiges following the o, which is clear, 
do not suit the beginnings of either mpoonxe: or avtevepyerev, the two last words of the 
sentence in the MSS., for though po is possible there is not space for » between that 
and the o. 

25. | dixacov Kpivo |v ol : Oikatov eivat Kpivovat MSS., which is too long for the lacuna. 

26. plev dn: re ov MSS.; but ’s reading is very uncertain. The letter before 
vy could equally well be v, i.e. air. but then it is very difficult to account for the following 
8 (or a), unless the beginning of éxaov was written twice by mistake. ‘There are some very 
faint traces of the penultimate letter before |ev or vv, but not sufficient to help in deciding 
between ro p\ev or pe olvy. 

27. modAjay{o|s: so Spengel; modAdcs MSS., Hammer. But M’s reading is very 

28. o: oiov MSS. 

29. onoray: dzov dv MSS., but the letter preceding av is more like 7 than v.  omes av 
might also be read. 

29-30. XP} |oypol v ne auto|y } XpHotpoy aitov MSS., avoiding the hiatus. It is not 
certain that the order was different in the papyrus, but the lacuna in 1. 30 corresponds 
to vmporep in 1. 29 and opovAap in |. 31, so that {vavro] is rather short for it, while [n-xpn| 
would make |. 29 rather long. 

30-1. avroly te [r\ov Gre loleedsle |ra vol pov ha] ipSavew : aitoy Te Toy dayopevovTa Kal TOY 

vopov Ra adnety MSS., which will hardly construe, and is probably a corruption of the true 
reading found in II. 

34. tas: om. MSS. 

35. kAemrovras Kodager: KAéntas exdkaceyvy MSS. kderrovras makes a better contrast than 
kNéemtas With efaratwrras in |. 36. 

dec: so Hammer with CF and the deteriores ; 6) MOP Ald. 

39- errot|noe TET OLNKE MSS. 7 

42. tov: cai roav MSS. 

tjov: so Hammer with CFM and the deteriores ; om. OP. 

43-7. The vestiges of these lines are very slight and the reconstruction very uncertain. 

48-9. ovs voug/ with a paragraphus below is on the fragment (¢) containing most 
of Col. ii, but the position of those letters in relation to Fr. (e) containing Cols. ili and iv 
is rendered certain by the writing on the verso, although Col. iii proves to be shorter 
by 3 lines than Col. ii. After voystovow there may have been a blank space of 3 or 
4 letters, so that the lacuna before jak may be reduced from ro letters to 6. The MSS. 



proceed ék pév odv tov évavtiwv, and ovy would be expected at the end of the line, but 
the two letters that remain are almost certainly ax. Since ex must have occurred 
somewhere in l. 49, we propose kak, i.e. kal ex, though this goes far to necessitate the 
alteration of pev ovv, which would almost fill up the lacuna between voyi{Covow and k|ak. 
It is just possible that ex pev ovy «la z[ov | evavrwwy should be read, but the vestiges suit 
x much better than cr. 

50-1. The order of words in the MSS. is évavtiay xarapavés otra yiverat To vépipov, from 
which the papyrus must have varied, since only 20 letters are available in 1. 51 between 
xjara and the end of the sentence. The vestiges before |. . xjara suit » and are not 
easily reconcilable with the termination of evavrwv or ywera. There is room for 3 
or 4 letters more than our supplement of the lacuna in |. 51, but there may well have 
been a blank space left between ywera and ex. 

54. The supplement, 26 letters, is rather long for the lacuna; in the corresponding 
space in the other lines the letters lost do not exceed 23. 

55. mapalrAn|(ara): dreEvtos Avoridov naparAnowa MSS. U1 either omitted S:eéidvros 
Avawbidov or, more probably, placed the words later in the sentence. 

56-7. Working back from ra pely in 1. 58, the m in 1. 57 seems to be the initial 
letter of {pooxorew which is found in ABDV in place of cxomeiy (CEFGMOP, Hammer), 
and x in ]. 56 must belong to «ja. There is not room in 1. 56 for the reading of the MSS. 
kal Tais méAeow Spovoovaas ouphépov eori, and probably cupdéepoy eori was omitted or placed 
before cai or a shorter phrase, e.g. dei, substituted. 

60. wédle|: &5€ cor MSS. 

61. [ro av|upepo'v): so Hammer with CFMP and the deteriores ; om. O. 

62. Tay Tw moNt| @ |v : trav roditav tinav MSS. 

64. rov[s]: so Hammer with CFMO and the deteriores ; om. P. 

65. [ol [ov |udepov eva: actvppopoy MSS. Cf. |. 210, note. 

67-8. Alaxe \Sarp{o|vrors ovppal x |al v momoapevous|: Td AakeSapoviovs cvppdxous Tomoaapévors 
pas MSS. 7é is not essential, and in other respects the new reading, which avoids the 
ambiguity of subject and object in that of the MSS., is preferable. 

70. ov|udepov: so Hammer with CFMP and the deteriores ; om. O. 

72. uno [evdoéwv x|pirav: im’ evddEov cuppepor MSS.; cf. note on Il. 1-5. 

ovrw : &ie MSS., which is better. ovrw has just occurred twice previously, in Il. 68 
and 7o. 

77. [e€avdparodi\oa\o Oa: avdparodioacOa, the reading of the MSS., is too short for the 
initial lacuna, which requires 11-13 letters. 

78. pera] OnBawv: om. MSS., which insert adrois after ¢€éy in the next line. For the 
occasion referred to in Il. 78-81 cf. Dem. De Cor. pp. 258-9. 

82. ple [rov: so CF; pév oy rov Hammer with the other MSS. The insertion of ow 
would make a line of 32 letters, which is unlikely ; possibly U had kat mepe | ple|p {rov. 

86. rovras is omitted by MOP, but probably stood in 0. The restorations of Il. 82, 

5, and 86 involve lines of 29 letters, that of 1. 84 a line of 30 letters, which is 2 or 
3 letters more than the average length of Il. 87-101; but it is fairly certain that 1. 83 
had 28 letters, and it is better to suppose that the lines at the top of this column 
were slightly longer than those below in spite of the fact that the beginnings of lines 
tend to slope away to the left, than to suppose that I differed extensively from the MSS. 
in ll. 80-86. 

88. If there was no space before wadw there is just room for the reading of the MSS. 
mddw 8€ dipidpeba (Or -odpueba) xai in this line. But elsewhere, when the writer inserts 
a paragraphus and the new sentence had begun in the line above, a space of from 
2-4 letters is left. Hence it is not unlikely that Tl had opi@peda (as conjectured by 


Spengel) or omitted cae at the end of 1. 88. Line 89, as restored, is already quite long 
enough, so that cae cannot be transferred to it without omitting some other word. 

93. tous pev 1|Sious: so Hammer with CF MP and the deteriores ; om. rovs O. 

95- ™m\v: om. MSS. 

mapadwoe: SO Hammer with CFMO and the deteriores ; wapadidaox P. 

Q7. ekaotas: éxaotas MSS. M's reading may be right. 

102. tov| apiOuov: so H. with CFM and the deteriores ; tay dpOyov P; om. O. 

103. dyu\nyopyteov: Snunyopyooper MSS. 

avayKal ov: dvdykn 

104. Bou[AleverOa: Kal BovdeverOac MSS., but there is not room for both «a and 
eors in the lacuna. The reading BovjA|\eveo@a is very uncertain, The traces following the 
supposed 8 (which might be read 0) would suit 7 better than ov. 

105. 7 ev dyuar [rept tepov n vopwv: kat Shue i) wept iepov fj mept vopov MSS. Possibly 
[7 wept should be read in |]. 106, but the supplement is already quite long enough, and for 
mept before voper there is certainly no room; cf. 109-10, note. 

108. [ras addas: so Hammer with CFM (and OP ?); om. ras the deteriores. The size 
of the lacuna makes it practically certain that I had ras. 

1og—10o. CFOP and the deteriores have 7 repi eipnyns i mept mépov, which is 4 or 
5 letters too long for the lacuna here, while M omits 4 wept eipnyns, with which reading 
II cannot be brought into agreement. The simplest course is to suppose the omission 
of mepe before either ecpnyns or Topov, preferably the former; cf. 1. 105, note. 

111. The supplement is rather long for the lacuna, and pey or ovww may have been 
omitted; cf. ]. 82, note. 

Tuy xavouat: Tuyxavovow otoat MSS. It would be just possible to restore Tuy xavovow | 
fovgat mept wy Bov|; but this would make |. 111 unusually long, and the lacuna at the 
beginning of ]. 112 suits rr or r2 letters better than 14. oda is quite unnecessary. 

114. OveAwpeOa: so H. with CFMP and the deteriores ; S:advodpeba O. 

115. mept rovrwy evdexerae: SO H, with CDFMOP ; evddxera: wepi rovrwy the rest of the 

116. tos Aoyos xpnoOa: xpnoacba H. with CF (first hand) MP; Adyo xpyoacba F 
(second hand) O and the deteriores. ’s reading is the best; cf. l. 279. 

117. tpitrws: so H. from a conjecture of Bekker ; mepurras (meperrois C) MSS. 

[a|varyka\ tov Aelyew : so H. with CFMP and the deteriores ; Aéyew dvayxaiov O. 

118-9. avayx|aloy ta kabeotwra Sia\pudatre: 7a Kabeot@ra Siadpvdakréoy MSS., except 
O which adds fepd after dap. The repetition of avaykawv which has occurred in the 
previous line is inelegant, and d:apvdakréoy is preferable, though this sentence has become 
corrupt in the MSS. ; cf. the next note. 

121, petaorateov: Tas MSS. (except évtws V, dvtos 1D); a reading which makes no sense 
and is justly bracketed by H. following Spengel. The insertion of peraoraréoy is a great 
improvement. With the MSS. reading a verb like peracraréov had to be supplied out 
of its opposite Stapvdaxréov, making a very harsh construction. Spengel (p. 121) had 
proposed the insertion of Set pe@oravat. 

125-6. After duaiov the MSS. have déyovres* 1a madrpia €0n mapa mao TrapaBaive adixdv 
éomt «ai, thus having 48 letters corresponding to what should occupy (allowing 28 
letters for a line) not more than 46 letters in OU, and clearly placing ta marpia €6y earlier 
in the sentence than Il. zapa maou, which is constructed with aé:cov, is awkwardly situated 
in the MSS. reading between ¢6y and wapaBaivew, and the simplest restoration of ll. 125-6 
is to keep all the words found in the MSS. and transpose ra mdrpia @n and rapa raor. This 
results. however, in giving 30 letters to 1. 125, which is unlikely; and since out of the 
three illustrations the MSS. introduce the second and third by éru. . . dre (v. 1. dudre . . . dr1), 

K 2 


omitting ér before the first, while M has dior (apparently) in the second case but omits 
it before the third, we suggest that M had dor in place of Aéyorres to introduce the 
first. The editio Basil. of 1539, based on an unknown MS., inserted 6ére after Aéyovres. 
If mapa mace is not placed before ta matpia €6y then (é)ore (Aeyovres is much too long) 
mapaBawew ta ra\rpia |e6n mapa raow adicov este is preferable to Score adicov eore Ta tra\rpia | €6n 
mapa tract rapaBavev. Blass prefers to restore 1. 125 tov |dckacov Aeyovres Svore ra wa, Omitting 
mapa mace on the ground that mapa raow adixdy €ore is not satisfactory in the sense of mapa 
maow adikov vopiterat. 

127. Seore: the traces of the letter after « suit 6 and are irreconcilable with o or 7, 
dure C and the deteriores ; 67. H. with FMOP. 

130. kat troy: Kai dre tay MSS. Cf. note on Il. 125-6. 

TiQ7, (Ot pev| voor To TANOos : of vdpor TO pev AROS MSS., which is the better reading. 

138. [atorpeovor: drorpéywor (dmoorpéyoot OV) MSS., but cf. lL. 141 euro |\noovew 
where they have éyromoaot. 

140-1. damavay {iAoriptay eprolmoovew : éxovolav aracav didotysiay eproujooot MSS. 
probably represents the true reading, ézacay being a corruption of dazavay and éxovsiay a gloss. 

142. Tis mlapackevaceev : KaTagKevicerey MSS. ; katacxevdcaey (sc. of vénor) H., adopting 
a conjecture of Spengel. In the reading of the MSS. xaracxevdoevev had no subject to refer 
to; but their error is now shown to have consisted not in the use of the singular but in 
the omission of the subject, which is probably rs, since there is room for 3 or 4 letters 
between av and mlapackevacecer. 

145. amo t\ov vonwv : so H. with CFOP and the deteriores ; om. M. 

146. yevope ver: Tmevonevov MSS. ‘The reading of 11 is probably a mere error ; cf. note 
on ll. 148-9. 

147. €p\ya{opevous : so H. with CFO and the deteriores ; epya¢opevovy MP. 

148-9. [re] kat Tous (vautexolus padhov [rev] ay opatl@|v mpott|\uav: Kat vavk\npodvtas Tov 
dyopaiwy paddrov mpotyoev MSS. The letter before s in |. 148 was certainly not a and the 
vestiges suit v. It is clear that I varied considerably from the MSS. in this sentence, and 
the difficulty of restoring Il. 147-9 is increased by the fact that there is an error in ]. 146 
and probably another in l. 149. The reading of the MSS. is thus translated by Bekker 
sicgue et agricolas pauperibus et navium gubernatores vectoribus anteponant, which is correct 
but yields no satisfactory sense ; for how would the poor be prevented from plotting against 
the rich by the laws favouring cultivators at the expense of the poor and shipowners at 
the expense of merchants? A meaning more relevant to the context is that suggested by 
St. Hilaire, ‘dans les rangs des pauvres ceux qui cultivent la terre ou qui montent les 
navires soient entourés de plus d’estime que les marchands de la place publique.’ This 
construction of trav mevouévevy as dependent on rods epyafopzevous is in any case preferable to 
Bekker’s view that it depends on paddoy, but ‘qui montent les navires’ is an impossible 
translation of vavkAnpotyras—which apparently no one has proposed to emend to vais 
mAnpoovras. IL did not have vaveAnpovvras, and though [vavkdnpo us would fit the lacuna, 
[vavrixovs, suggested by Blass, is much more likely. The earlier parts of Il. 146-9 
are on a separate fragment, the position of which is fairly certain since there is no other 
place among the extant columns to which it can be assigned. ‘There remains the difficulty 
of the infinitive mpore|zav in ]. 149. ‘There is no room to insert in Il, 148-9 a verb in 
the optative which would govern it, and the choice seems to lie between supplying a verb 
or, better, altering mporimay to mporiperev (sc. of vdpor) OF mpotipar (sc. tus or whatever 
was the subject of w|apacxevacecey in 1. 142). The frequency of infinitives after Set and xp 
throughout this chapter may account for the error. 

149-51. ovrw yap... . AetTovpynoovt lw: orws .. . Netroupynowor MSS. 

152-3. em Ovpnoe: emOvpunon MSS. ; cf. the previous note. 


RSS oe cre eon lv: det b€ mpds rovros MSS. Perhaps de rowv'v should be restored, 
but the construction of Il. 153-9 is not clear. «x[vpous xevOae vopors in |. 156 may depend 
on xpn in |. 159 (cf. note ad /oc.). 

154. avadaot lov rove : roveiv avadaatov MSS. 

155-6. tev i letters olavrev : tev tekevrovtay MSS., which will not do. Usener 
had suggested rév idtorév, Wilamowitz rév mAourotvrey ; and I now shows that some word 
has dropped out in the MSS., and an aorist, not a present, participle is the correct reading, 
[wrwrwy reAeuTyo |avtwy is possible, but reNevrovray may come from the next clause (cf. 1. 160, 
note). Blass proposes ter \tnv wodw pn adikng |avrar, 

159. xpn kar: xp dé MSS. I thus makes emxe@a in |. 158 and perhaps xeoOa in 
1. 157 (cf. 1. 153, note) depend on xpn, as well as the two verbs that follow, apopicba and 
d:dova, whereas in the MSS. the words preceding yp4 depend on 8 at the beginning of the 
sentence, and ypy is connected only with what follows. The position given to xpy in TI 
is not very satisfactory, but without knowing what stood in the lacuna in 1. 153 it-is 
impossible to say whether the omission of 6e is intentional or a slip. 

160. ror: om. MSS. ree may be right; cf. e.g. 14. 34 and the passage of Aeschines 
quoted ad loc. 

tehevtngact: tekevr@ow MSS. ; cf. note on |. 156. 

tapnv: eis tapny MSS. The scribe has placed before rpopny in 1. 163 the es which 
ought to have come before ragnv here. 

161. Onpoorov xwproy : te xwpiov Snpdcrov MSS. 

162. agwpioda: so H. with Ald.; dpwpicpévov MSS, (Hammer's apparatus assigns 
apepic Oa to a, his sign for the family CFMOP, but cf. Spengel’s notes ad Joc. ‘ apopiopevor| 
adde civa, edtti ex Venela épopioba, and ‘apopicpévor] src bri omnes’). 

kairo. Taow : a Corruption of kai rois maciv (MSS.). 

avtwv: so H. with CFM and the deteriores; om. OP. 

163. ews nBnowor evs tpopny dSidovar: ws FAs Snyootav tpopnv Sidoc6a MSS. I is 
corrupt, the scribe having inserted before rpcfyv the es which ought to have come before 
tapyy in |. 160 (cf. note ad loc.). But ews n8yoo1 may be right, for ws with the genitive is 
a late use, while és with the subjunctive without é& is parallel to the similar construction 
occasionally found with mptv and péy~ in Attic prose; and though -wo« may have its origin 
in the omitted Snyoiav, the insertion of that word is not necessary, especially as dypoatov 
Xepeoy occurs in |. 161. 

164. tats Snpoxparias : tH Snuoxpatia MSS.; cf. 1. 174, note. Il’s reading is the better ; 
cf. év pev tais Snpoxpatias in p. 23. 10 (ens): 

165. tovavtny dec tyv Oeow rorercOar: thy Géow toradtny bei moeivGac MSS. The order in 
II is preferable. 

168. karavewew: arovepeery MSS. EG omit xa. 

ms: so H. with CFMO and most of the deteriores; om. P; tv followed by 
moAtreiav DV. 

170. tas mheoras: tas pev whetotas MSS., which is preferable. 

I71. xpupaa: xpurty MSS. 

172. peO: so H. with CFMP and the deteriores ; xai pe’ O. 

F735 kav; om. MSS: 

174. Tas odvyapxeal es |: TH Odvyapxta MSS. ; cf. note on 1. 164. 

175. uBpifovow: wBpitev MSS. 1's reading is a blunder. 

178. orepopevov: sO H, with CFGMOP ; crepotpevor the rest of the deteriores. 

179. xpn Se]: xpy dé kat MSS., but a supplement of 18 letters is rather long for the 
lacuna, not more than 15 being lost in the corresponding space in this column, so that xa, 
which I inserts in |]. 173 where the MSS. omit it, was probably omitted here. 


181-2. Siadv, CLUE he one | Kal pn [o |uvay| ew: Ocadvew Kal py ypori¢erOa pnde acuvayew 
MSS.9° 9H probably substituted a phrase meaning ‘without delay’ for the second 

183. Tov oxA| ov ec|s 7 nv moNw : emt Tv mwOAW TOV BxAov MSS. 

186. k[aOlorolv Se eve dec: Kadddov S€ eineiv Set rods vdpovs MSS. There is not room 
for both eure and rovs vopouvs in 1. 186, but TM may equally well have omitted emev and 
kept rovs vopous. 

TQI. tTys wodd reas: sO H. with CFO and the deteriores ; rodiras MP. 

194. ovwv: so H. with CF MP and the deteriores ; om. O. 

1Q7. avr ayopevorra prev vonwi: Tov ovvayopevey eOedAovra vopat MSS. For our restoration 
cf. the antithesis dytiAéyovra S€ oxoreiv (p. 23. 22), where dé has been corrupted in most 
MSS. to dei. [ayopevovra von by itself is too short for the lacuna, and the insertion of 
vey is an improvement. The omission of réy in I! may be an error, but 7rév is not 

198. Secxvur' ar: Secxview MSS. 

201. amep av v\mapxne: Gnep av brdpxn tatta H. with CF and the deteriores ; arep 
indpyer taita MOP; but amep [v\rapxer is also possible, though for ravra in any case there i is 
noroom. If II had read vmap|yee we should have to suppose a lacuna of ro letters instead 
of 13 before the first » of 1. 202, and hence diminish by 3 the size of the initial 
lacuna throughout. This would cause no trouble in Il. 200-1, where karotxovr|ras would 
suit equally well, but would lead to difficulties in 1. 205, where the lacuna could not be 
restored without cutting down the text of the MSS. (cf. note ad loc.), Line 206 is hard 
to reconcile with the ordinary reading, even with the longer lacuna; with the shorter some 
alteration would be imperative. The only serious objection to the view of the size of the 
initial lacunae in this column upon which we have based our restorations occurs in Il. 204, 
where 18 letters would be expected instead of 14 before the » of mpwro|u. ‘The supplement 
[evdexerae mpwro|, however, contains several broad letters, and it is not, we think, necessary 
to insert anything. 

204-5. oufk avaykyn + SO FMOP and the deteriores; ov« dvaykatov H. with C, and there 
would be room for avayxaoy in the lacuna, but cf. 1. 204. If the lacuna were supposed to 
be smaller (cf. note on 1. 201), xpy or deov would have to be substituted for « avayxn. 

206. The MSS. reading (20 letters) is rather long for the lacuna, for which r7 letters 
are sufficient, and the line as restored contains 32 letters, which is a quite exceptional 
length, though in any case |. 206 projects considerably into the right-hand margin. Perhaps 
«6 should be read in place of exeé. With a smaller lacuna at the beginning [eed ws ov 
Tuyx |avovow ovt| es dixacoc would be necessary ; cf. note on |. 2o0r. 

_ 207-8. romoalpres : merounxdtes MSS., which proceed ef d€ py «.7.A. There is no clue 
to what the lacuna of 14 letters in 11 contained. 

210, alduvaroe ovtes : odx tmdpxovtes Suvaroi MSS. Cf. 1. 65, note. 

212. \eow: after pevy odv the MSS. have rats dvtioyias Kat rats cuvnyopias, for which 
MI substituted something much shorter (22 letters instead of 33), the second substantive 
(if there were two) being a word ending in -os. 

213. tals: so MSS. The reading is very doubtful; ep{e would suit the traces better, 
but would leave only ro letters for the lacuna, which requires 14-16. 

215-6. mepe worepov [dle Kae ¢[clonlyns : mept eipnyns dé wadw Kai rodguov MSS. The order 
in II is supported by that in Il. rog—ro. 

217. eyAa3@pev has been corrected from eySadopev by writing A above the 8, which 
is crossed out, and 8 through the A. 

218, wodenov: so H. with CFMP and the deteriores ; zod€uov by a slip O. 

21g. ade: adra det d€ CFMOP; adrac Set H. with the deteriores. aide is better than 


atra, and det is quite unnecessary ; probably preserves the original reading, of which 
those of the MSS. are corruptions. 

220-1. kKatpou Tapatremt| @KOTOS : Kalp@v TapaT eTT@KOT@V MSS. The singular is better. 

222. The MSS. vary between déicoupevous (the deteriores) and ddunOévras (CFMOP), 
but whichever tense be adopted the supplement is rather long, being 21 or 22 letters 
instead of 18 or 19 as would be expected ; perhaps vwv was omitted. 

223. avtray: avtay FMOP; airay C; éavray H. with the deteriores. It is highly 
improbable that M had e||avroy, which would make an unlikely division at the end of 
a line of more than average length (cf. the preceding note). 

229. [ovvlaxreov: the ¢ is corrected from o(?). GV read owraxrévv, which is out of the 
question here. 

pera: so H. with CF and the deteriores; «ard MOP. 

230. [ws|: om. MSS. Cf. note on 1. 231. 

[rex] tmovenor: SO H. with ABCEF (first hand) MOP; rod woreuou F (second hand) 
and DV. 

231. tovrey ott mAciota: Ore wAciota ToOUTeV AB; éri ra mAciota Tovroy H. with the other 
MSS., thus making ér: dependent on dexréov, while 1 clearly connects it with mAciora, or 
mdevora being parallel to ore mAetoras in |. 228. A conjunction is then required, and 
accordingly we have inserted @s in ]. 230. Of the two rival readings either might easily be 
corrupted into the other, but that of 1 makes the sense clearer, and seems preferable. 

232. eott umlalpxovra: tmdpxorra eote MSS. The reading of 1 is no improvement, 
especially as ear has no v epedxvorixdy, but the vestiges, though slight, do not suggest any 
alternative to vm{alp| yovra. 

233. modepovr|res: om. MSS., probably through an error. 

234-5. ev \ruxtay nyeed|s | k\alA{o |u[ pe |p : evTuxlay mpooayopevouey H. with most of the 
deteriores ; evwuyiav rpocayopevousey CDE N . 

237. otpatniyou: so H. with CFMO and the deteriores; orparod P. 

ZX TOMGUN. oye s) <0) 21/«\ 6 ] evpr|tav : torev evpviay H. with CFOP and the deteriores ; 
tonov etmoiav M. ‘The lacuna may have contained an adjective for rézwv or a substantive 
coupled by # or xai to edpviav, 

241. TouT| os opootporey: toovrey MSS. DV add dépoorpdras, apparently intending 
TovTols Gpovotpore@v, Which was probably W’s reading; cf. 1. 214. 

243. The scanty remains of Col. xv are so much obliterated that only a few letters 
can be deciphered with certainty, and the restorations are very doubtful in many cases. 
It is clear that between ll. 245 and 252 I varied extensively from the MSS. in being con- 
siderably shorter. Very likely there were some omissions due to homoioteleuton, for the 
passage is a particularly confusing one for a scribe. In 1, 243 0 is the only certain letter, 
but the vestiges of the two preceding letters suit mp. pa\xurepolu|s is inadmissible ; and 
mpos seems to be the word meant, though if the next word was intended to be Bpaxurepous 
either spoopax or mpoSpax must have been written, for the space between o and the supposed 
p is barely sufficient for even one narrow letter. po Bpayvtepov is not satisfactory, and 
since the reading pax is extremely doubtful M1 may have had something quite new here. 

244. kale: so H. with A (second hand) BFG; om. other MSS. 

245. The MSS. have &8 mdvtws (mavtas DV) atéew ed xéxpitat, with which the reading 
of 11 cannot be reconciled. The vestiges of this line will not suit any part of ecexp, and 
there is not room for 22 letters in the lacuna, which, taking the tolerably certain supple- 
ments of Il. 254-6 as the standard and allowing for the slope of the column to the left, 
should contain 16 or 17 letters. The omission of mdvres, which is not necessary, leaves 
16 letters. 

246-50. The MSS. have aya6sv roire rovrm ti évavriov eav éyns péya Kakdv paveirat, 

136 Bist VA vied 

Qoatras bé €i vopiterar peya Kakdv edy TovT@ évavtiov éyns péya ayaboy aveirar, éote 8€ Kat @d€ 
peydda Tovey ta ayaba i) Ta Kaka dv dmopaivys aitov ek Stavoias k.T.N., 178 letters where H, 
allowing even 28 letters for a line, has but 140. Probably there were some omissions 
owing to homoioteleuton, as in P, which omits péya xaxdv paveirar . . . €vartion eyns. pel ya, 
which is fairly certain in 1. 246, comes too soon. ‘The vestiges preceding it are recon- 
cilable with Aeynils, but do not suggest s. The v in ]. 247 perhaps belongs to vopicerar, and 
that in ]. 248 to evavriov, but the traces of other letters lend no assistance. 

250. ja: working back from gov in 1, 251, the MSS. reading eav dmogaivys avrév éx 
Siavoias cupS8d¢or does not produce an a at the right place. Perhaps ¢ay drodaivys 
aitév Was omitted and the a belongs to ayaOa or kaka, or we might change the order and 
restore ex dujal(voras avrov. But the MSS. reading is very unsatisfactory (Usener proposes 
airwov for avrév), and ja may represent a participle such as wpagavr|a, the insertion of which 
would be a great improvement. 

252. The supplement (22 letters) is a little long, when judged by the standard of 
ll. 24 and 256, which have rg in the corresponding space; but cf. 1. 253 and |. 255, 
which apparently has 21. 

mo \Nwv : TONG TpaTTEL MSS. 

253. The supplement (23 letters) is again rather long, and not more than 19 would 
be expected ; cf. 1. 252, note. 

254. mlporepos: SO ABEG; mpérepov H. with CDFMOPV. 

254-8. The supplements of these lines are rather short. Possibly M inserted empagev 
again after emt TouTo.s. 

259. .... moo per: tovr@ trws rorotuev MSS., which is too long if \yev is correctly read. 
Those letters, however, are very uncertain, and mo is possible, in which case rovrat tows 
could be retained in 1], 259. But difficulties would then arise in the restoration of |. 260, 
which seems to end in ev, the vestiges being inconsistent with zplar, plav, or @avdlos. On 
the whole, therefore, it seems preferable to suppose that Il had some variant (om. tovr@ ?) 
for rovt@ icas. 

260-1. mparrousler [pavrtos: havtos mparroyrer MSS., which cannot be reconciled with 
i; cf. the preceding note. If our restoration of 1. 261 is correct, there must have been 
a blank space before xpn. 

264. The supplement is rather long ; perhaps Se was omitted. But the supposed » in 
|. 263 is very doubtful, and if there was an omission in II it may have occurred in Il. 262 or 
263, where os is really superfluous. 

265. eotkos: tovrov eikds MSS.  eorxos must be wrong. 

yove| us| Tysav ov: avrod yoveis tysav MSS. (except P, which has atrovs by mistake). ov, 
which makes no sense, may be a survival of atrod, but is more likely to have been caused by 
the occurrence of ripat ovros immediately afterwards. 

266. of|ns: so H. with F (and OP?); és CM (so Spengel; from H. it would be 
inferred that they read éo7s) and the deteriores. 

ylolvers : yoveas MSS., though reading yovets in |. 265. 

267. Bio|vAn| o |erae elu mow : €0 trovety Bouvdnoerat MSS. 

269. pev: om. MSS., rightly. Whether 0 had « at the end of the line is very doubtful. 

271-6. I here differs considerably from the MSS., which have oxometv d€ kal ro mpaypa 
éroiov qbaveita kata pépn Starpoipevov kai (f the deteriores) xa@ddov Neydpevoy Kai dmotepas 
(6rérepov FO) dy peigov } rovde tov tpdrov abrd éyew. T's version is superior in several 
respects ; métepoy .. . 7) .. brings out the contrast between xara népn and xaOddov better than 
émoiov . . kai... , and rovrov is much preferable to révde. |uev in |. 271 is probably the 
termination of a verb in the future or subjunctive governing cxorew, and the insertion of this 
and of de in l. 276 is an advantage, the infinitives oxomeiy and Aéyew in the MSS. reading 


being dependent on ypy supplied from xpi 5é Kal eixdgovra, although a different sentence 
ovdAnBdnv ... paveirac has intervened. 

276. avfjoas: so H. with MSS., except M which has avgjoas. 

277. mAeoras Kat peyioras Totes: Treiotas Tones Kal peyioras MSS. 

279. tows hoyos: so H. with BCFMOPV; rév Adyor ADEG. Cf. 1. 116, note. 

280. xa is a mistake for kaka. G and E (first hand) invert aya@a and kaka. D omits 

281. evpnoers ka pev: as eipnxapev MSS., which insert dy after pev in |. 282, and in 
place of emdeckvvew in |. 283 have éemdecrivar (C), emdecxviers (EO) or émidecxvins (the rest; 
so H.). evpnoes, which makes ramewooers a substantive instead of a verb, as it is on the 
MSS. reading, may in itself be right; but cay pev .. . emdecxyvew must be wrong, and 
evpnoets looks somewhat like a corruption of ws ey, due to a misunderstanding of ramrewo- 
ges. Whether evpyoes be retained or not, cap pev must be altered to os (or wx) etpneayev and 
emdetxvuey Corrected, either by reading av... emSecxvunis with the majority of the MSS., or 
by the simpler substitution of the participle emdecxvuer. 

284. pixporarayv: opixporaravy MSS, 

287. expepopev: €6€hopev MSS.; expepoper, ‘bring forward,’ is more pointed. 

288. xno |epae : xpnomo. MSS. 

[de] Tov avéntewy evo ale a\ploppac : d€ ai tay avgnoewy ahoppai ctor MSS., and it is possible 
to read [6 at] tev avéqoewy eat alpolp|ua, though the other restoration seems more 

290-1. duvapus ev Tos eykopltors Kat Tolls Yoyo eatw avtias: dvvapis aitav eotw ev Trois 
€ykwptots Kal ev tois Woyos MSS. 

292. ow: so H. with most MSS. ; om. C (B, not C Spengel). 

293. dveAdopev: so H. adopting a conjecture of Spengel. déAopev MSS. 

294. TovTos opo(to)r| plomas : Opotorpéras tovtas MSS. 

295. katnyoptxov: sO H. with most MSS. ; xarnyopytixdy GM. Cf. 1. 297. 

aro\ oytko|p : TO avoXoyntixov H, with MSS., except O which omits 76. Cf. 1. 300. 

296. After eiSos the MSS. have 4 Tept Thy Oikavikny é€ote mpayuareiav atta te, Which is 
omitted by 0. The words are probably an interpolation ; cf. p. 116. 

OVVEOTHKHDY : IE OUVEOTHKED. G has auvEeaTNGE, and E has «e in an erasure. 

autots bec: Set ad’tois MSS. 

297. katnyopixoy: so H. with most MSS. > katTnyopntiKoyv Mer Cial 295: 

299. «Enynow: ekdyyehois MSS. e€nynous is the more natural word. 

300. arohoy:kov : arohoyntexdy MSS. Cf. 1. 295. 

adiknuarey Kat apaptnuatay : auaptnudrev Kal ddiknudrov MSS. 

302. umontevOevtav : xabumonrevdevray MSS., probably by an erroneous repetition of the 
initial syllable of xatnyopnOévrer. 

303. ekatepwv: éxatépov MSS, 

304-5. tavras: SoOCFMOP. as ards H. with the deteriores. 

ex\olvres: exdvrwy the deteriores and Ald.; exovros H. with CFMOP. eyovrwv is required 
in II if exarepwv is anything more than a mistake for exatepov, and above the second e of 
ex\olvres (which must in any case be wrong) is some ink which may represent » But of 
the 2 or 3 letters after exovres that project into the margin beyond any other line in this 
column of which the end is preserved, the first is certainly not », and they are probably to 
be connected with the following words. 

TOV ka| Tyyopovrra| tolur 3c le .:  Katnyopovvra pev MSS., except C which has xarnyopo 
wev. ‘The restoration of II is very uncertain. The insertion of roy is rather an improve- 
ment, but the reading is quite doubtful, and though xaryyopovvra seems necessary, the 
vestiges at the beginning of 1. 305 do not suit «a very well. The lacuna after xa is large 


enough for r1 or even 12 letters, but hardly for [ryyopouvra pev|. rour|o| p/ev might be read, 
but is not satisfactory; for rovzjo| A¢[ye there is not room. In place of the second 
doubtful 7, 7 or y can equally well be read. 

306. pev: so H. with CFMO and the deteriores ; d¢ P. 

307. The vestiges of the first letter would suit equally well (i.e. maparnpev), but 
a line of 20 letters would be unusually short. 

308. The x of mows seems to have been corrected. 

katn|yopnnatayv: ddicnpdrav MSS. 

309. ot [vopor: so H. with most MSS.; om. M. 

311. nuapt|nuevay : ddiacnuaroy MSS., probably an erroneous repetition. Cf. the con- 
trast Of adccnuatoy and apaptnparey in Il. 298-301. 

313. 0 vopos d{cloplexas ne: 7 vopos Suopuos MSS. M's reading is better; Spengel had 
already suggested the insertion of the article before vépos. 

314. xatnyolp[oly: o does not fill the space between p and », which would accommodate 
two letters, but it is difficult to see what these could have been, unless indeed the scribe 
wrote katnyopour(@). 

315. omws: so H.with CF (first hand) MP; éres av F (second hand) O and the deteriores. 

316-8. I here preserves a much better text than the MSS., which have érav (ére H. 
with C) S€ of dikaorai 7d Katnyopovpevoy icaow (ciSéow A (second hand) EG) avénréov éori ra 
adicnpata Kat padtora pev Seuxtéov ws éxov x.t.A. For the unsatisfactory tcacw or eiddow 
Spengel had acutely conjectured tiyoow, the verb found in I, and divined that 16 
KaTnyopovpevoy Was wrong. I inserts, no doubt rightly, a clause contrasting the preliminary 
proof of the facts with the subsequent magnifying of the crime. After xat|nyopoupeva it 

probably continued eme:ra avénreov x.t.d. For avayxn in |. 317 cf. 1. 103, note; dec makes the 
line hardly long enough. 



Mummies 68 and 69. Height 16-8 cm. B.c. 301-240. Prater VIII (Cols. iii and iv). 

On the recto of this long papyrus, which is in 16 fragments, is a calendar for 
a year, preceded by an introductory treatise in which the writer explained for 
a pupil’s instruction the source of his information, and gave a general sketch 
of his astronomical system. Of the calendar the larger portion is preserved, but 
the remains of the introduction probably represent only a small portion of it. 
Two hands, both a large clear semi-uncial, are found in the main text, the first being 
responsible for Cols. i-iii, the second for the rest. A few corrections in Col. iv 
sqq. are due to a third hand or, perhaps, to the writer of Cols. i-iii, On the 
verso of Fr. (a) is some demotic writing, on that of Fr. (d) a brief account, and 

i CLE EN DAR. 139 

on that of Fr. (wz) part of a list of names, while on the verso of Fr. (c) is another 
short list of names headed (€rovs) 1 Meco[p7}. The king in question is presumably 
Euergetes, to the early part of whose reign we assign 34 and 78, from the same 
mummies as 27; and we regard B.C. 240 as the latest possible date for the 
writing on the recto. This, however, is probably a few decades older, and may even 
be as ancient as B.C. 301-298, the period to which the calendar apparently refers 
(v. if.) At the conclusion of that period the dates of the recorded phenomena 
would cease to apply, and it is not easy to account for a copy of the calendar 
being made after the information contained in it had become antiquated and 
useless. The handwriting, though presenting no special signs of exceptional 
antiquity, is not inconsistent with the view that the calendar was written at 
the very beginning of the third century B.c., and the Hibeh collection has 
provided one document written in the 5th year of Ptolemy Soter I (84 a). 
Cols. i-iii each have 18 lines and very narrow margins between the columns, 
while Cols. iv-xiv range from 13 to 15 lines in each and the margins are 
sometimes narrow, sometimes (as between Cols. vi and vii) as much as 7-5 cm. 
in breadth. 

Fr. (a), containing Cols. i-iii, appears to come from a point near the actual 
commencement of the text, and it is possible that Jew in 1. 1 is the termination 
of xaiplew, and belongs to the opening sentence of the introduction, which is- 
in any case couched in an epistolary form. Nothing further is to be gleaned 
from the scanty remains of Col. i; in Cols. ii and iii the compiler, who was in 
the Saite nome (1. 21 ; cf. note), explains that he had been receiving instruction 
on astronomy from a certain wise man (Il. 19-33), and announces his intention 
of summarizing the teaching for his pupil’s benefit (ll. 34-41). Accordingly 
in |. 41 he begins with a description of the different years in use in Egypt; this, 
so far as it goes (I. 54), corresponds closely to a passage in the account of the 
Evécéov téxvy which was written by one of that astronomer’s followers, and 
is preserved in P. Par. 1; cf. p. 143, and ll. 41-54, note. To the interval, 
extending probably to at least 6 or 7 columns, between Frs. (a) and (6) may be 
assigned the small Frs. (7)-(g), which do not belong to the calendar portion 
of the papyrus, and are not likely to have followed Col. xiv, since that column 
may well be the last of the whole text. The subject of Frs. (7) and (0), which 
seem to be connected, though the relative position assigned to them in our 
text is not certain, is the seasons ; that of Fr. (7) the length of the year. 

Turning to the calendar, the year under discussion is an ordinary Egyptian 
annus vagus of 365 days beginning with Thoth 1. The account of the first 
three months is missing; but Frs. (4)-(#), containing Cols. iv—-xiv, which are 
continuous, preserve with some lacunae the entries from Choiak 1 to the end 


of the year, Col. xiv probably giving, as we have said, the conclusion of the 
papyrus. The details recorded under the various days are (1) the changes 
of the seasons indicated by the equinoxes and solstices; (2) the passing of the 
sun at its rising from one of the 12 great constellations to another ; (3) the risings 
and settings of certain stars or constellations; (4) prognostications concerning 
the weather, such as are commonly found in ancient calendars ; (5) stages in the 
rising of the Nile (ll. 126, 168, and 174); (6) certain festivals, which in two 
instances (ll. 76 and 165) took place at Sais; (7) the length of the night and day. 

For ‘the following remarks on the place of observation and date of the 
calendar, and its connexion with Eudoxus, to which we have already alluded, 
we are indebted to Prof. J. G. Smyly, who has greatly assisted us in the 
elucidation of this text. 

‘Place of observation. The length of the longest day is given by the 
papyrus (1.115) as 14 hours, and that of the shortest night as 10 hours; if then we 
take the inclination of the ecliptic to have been 24° and / denote the latitude, 
we can determine 7 from the equation cos 75° = tan 24° tan /, from which we 
obtain 7 = 30° 10’: cf. Ptolemy, Syz. AZath. ii. (ed. Heiberg, p. 108) €vartds eort 
mapdddydos Kad’ dv adv yévorto 7) peyloTn Huépa wpov ionuepwov v6. awéxer 8 obTos 
rod lonpepivod potpas A KB Kar ypdderat bia THs Kdtw xwpas Tis Alydntov. This 
agrees very well with the statement of the papyrus (I. 21; cf. ll. 76 and 165) 
that the calendar was drawn up in the Saite nome, probably at Sais itself. 

‘Date. Since the calendar is constructed according to the vague year of the 
Egyptians, it would have been possible to determine its date within four years 
from the dates assigned to the equinoxes and solstices, had these been correctly 
given. In the following table the Julian dates for the early part of the third 
century B.C. are taken from Unger (I. Miiller’s Hando, I’, p. 823) :— 

Spring equinox 20 Tubi (1. 62) 25 March. 
Summer solstice 24 Pharmouthi (1. 120) 27 june: 
~ Autumn equinox 23 Epeiph (1. 170) 27 September. 

‘The date of the calendar deduced from the equations Tubi 20 = March 25 
and Pharmouthi 24 = June 27 would be B.C. 301-298; that given by the 
equation Epeiph 23 = September 27 is B.C. 313-310. These results do not 
agree (see below), and we cannot be certain of the accuracy of the observations ; 
but we may safely deduce B.C. 300 as an approximate date. 

‘ Connexion with Eudoxus. 1. The interval between the spring equinox and 
summer solstice is correctly given by the papyrus as 94 days, that between the 
summer solstice and autumn equinox as 89 days; the whole interval between 
the spring and autumn equinoxes is thus 183 days, which is about 3 days too 

27. CALENDAR 141 

few. The writer of the papyrus evidently belonged to a school of astronomers 
who supposed that the equinoxes divided the year into approximately equal 
parts; cf. G. V. Schiaparelli, Memorie del Real. Inst. Lomb. xiii. p. 129, Nov., 
1874. If we may trust P. Par. I. 525 sqq., the interval between the autumn 
equinox and the spring equinox according to Eudoxus was 92+ 91 = 183 days, 
while according to Democritus it was 91+91 = 182 days, thus leaving for the 
period of 183 days given by the papyrus 182 days according to Eudoxus, and 
183 according to Democritus. So far this would point to Democritus rather than 
Kudoxus ; but there are other striking resemblances to the theories of Eudoxus. 

‘2. According to the papyrus the spring equinox took place on Tubi 20 
and the sun entered Taurus on Mecheir 6, so that the equinox took place when 
the sun was in the middle or at the 15th degree of Aries. Now according 
to Hipparchus the placing of the equinoxes and solstices at the middle of the 
signs was peculiar to Eudoxus; e.g. Hipp. i. 6. 4 tadtrns (ris Muxpas “Apxtov) 
yap 6 €xXarTos Kal Napmpératos dotp Ketrat Kata THY UN’ poipay Tv lyOvwr, ds be Evdofos 
Oratpet TOV CpdtaKdy KUKAOY, Kata Ti y’ poipav Tod Kpiod. Thus the 1st degree of Aries 
according to Eudoxus’ division of the Zodiac coincided with the 15th degree of 
Pisces according to Hipparchus, and the equinox, which according to Hipparchus 
was at the Ist point of Aries, would according to Eudoxus occur at the 15th 
degree of Aries. Again Hipp. ii. 1.15 says mpodverApOw be mpdrov bre THY Ovalpecuy 
Tod Cvdiaxod KdKAov 6 wey "Apatos memoinra and tev TpomiKev Te Kal ionpepivav 
onpetwy apxopevos Gore tatta Ta onweta Gpxas civar Cwdiwv, 6 d& Evdogos otra Ounpynrat, 
@ore Ta eipnpeva onpeta peca elvat, TA pev Tod Kapxivov Kal Tod Aiyoxepm Ta d€ Tod 
Kp.od kal trey XnAGv ; cf. ii. 1. 19 kal b76 THY Gpyaloy b& paOnpatiKGy TdrTwOY aX €O0v 
7) Tov TAEloTwY ToBToy Tdv TpdmoD (i. e. as by Aratus) 6 Cpévaxds KvKdos dujpyto. Ste 
6€ Evdokos 7a tpomiKd onpeia Kata péoca Ta (wd.a TiOnot SHAOV ToLel Oia TOUTWH K.T.d. 
As is clear from these quotations, Hipparchus considered that Eudoxus stood 
almost alone among ancient astronomers in putting the equinoctial and solstitial 
points at the middle of the signs. It was for a long time supposed that Eudoxus 
had used an ancient globe, many centuries older than his own times, constructed 
at a period when the spring equinox was really in the middle of the dodecatemory 
called Aries by Hipparchus, and that Eudoxus himself never even looked at 
the sky. This absurd theory was controverted by Ideler in Abhandl. der k. Ap. 
der Wiss. zu Berlin, 1830, p. 58, who gives the true explanation that the 
dodecatemory called Aries by Eudoxus extended from the 15th degree of 
Pisces to the 15th degree of Aries according to Hipparchus. It may be 
remarked in this connexion that the correspondence of the signs kara ovdvylav 
described, but wholly misunderstood, by Geminus, £/. As¢r. ii. 27 sqq., depends 
upon placing the equinoctial points in the middle of the signs. 


‘If we measure 15 back from the position of the equinox at the time of 
Eudoxus we find that the first point of Aries according to him very nearly 
coincided with the star ¢ Piscium. This coincidence is very remarkable, and 
should prove of considerable importance in the difficult question as to the origin 
of the signs of the Zodiac. KE. Burgess and Prof. Whitney, S%rya-Siddhanta, 
Fournal of American Oriental Society, vi. p. 158, write:—“ The initial point 
of the fixed Hindu sphere, from which longitudes are reckoned, and at which 
the planetary motions are held by all schools of Hindu astronomy to have 
commenced at the Creation, is the end of the asterism Revati, or the beginning 
of Acvini. Its position is most clearly marked by that of the principal star of 
Revati, which, according to the Strya-Siddhanta, is 10’ to the west of it, 
but according to other authorities exactly coincides with it. That star is by all 
authorities identified with ¢ Piscium, of which the longitude at present, as reckoned 
by us, from the vernal equinox, is 17° 54". Making due allowance for the 
precession, we find that it coincided in position with the vernal equinox not far 
from the middle of the sixth century or about 570 A.D. As such coincidence 
was the occasion of the point being fixed upon as the beginning of the sphere, 
the time of its occurrence marks approximately the era of the fixation of the 
sphere, and of the commencement of the history of modern Hindu astronomy.” 
Now the exact correspondence of the initial points of the spheres of Eudoxus 
and of the Hindu astronomers cannot be an accidental coincidence, and seems 
to invalidate the theory that the Hindu sphere was fixed by the position of the 
spring equinox. In these circumstances we are at liberty, or rather are 
compelled, to reject the deduction that “the point from which longitudes are 
reckoned, and at which the planetary motions are held by all schools of Hindu 
astronomy to have commenced at Creation” was first fixed at about 570 A.D. 
This is not the place to discuss the question as to the relation of Eudoxus to 
Indian astronomy, but my own belief is that the Indian sphere was fixed at 
a very early period and adopted from Indian astronomers by Eudoxus. 

‘The length of time occupied by the sun in passing through the constellations 
presents considerable difficulty ; the details are as follows :— 

lO 2s EN TIES, Tubi 5—Mecheir 6, 31 days. 
1.66. Taurus, Mecheir 6—Phamenoth 4, 28 days. 
1, 88. Gemini, Phamenoth 4—Pharmouthi 3, 29 days. 
1107. Cancer, Pharmouthi 3—Pachon 6, 33 days. 
102.92, 4e0; Pachon 6—Pauni 4, 25 days. 
]. 137. Virgo, Pauni 4—Epeiph x, 

8 days. 
Libra, Epeiph x—Mesore 2, J 58 days 

ar Si Scorpio; Mesore 2— ? 

27. CALENDAR 143 

‘The spring equinox is given as 15 days in Aries, the summer solstice as 
21 days in Cancer, and the autumn equinox Io days only before the sun enters 
Scorpio. If the signs of the papyrus are true dodecatemories, the dates of 
entering the different signs must be wrong ; for the spring equinox being in the 
middle of the sign so also should the autumn equinox be. 

‘3. The stars or constellations whose risings and _ settings according to 
Eudoxus are given in the calendar assigned to Geminus (Lydus, De Ostentis, 
&c., ed. Wachsmuth, pp. 181 sqq.) are Aquila (’Aerds), Capella (Até), Arcturus, 
Delphinus, Lyra, Pleiades, Scorpio, Sirius (Ki»v), Corona Borealis Lrépavos), 
Hyades and Orion ; all of these, except Alé (which can be restored with certainty 
in Il. 88 and 177), are mentioned in the papyrus, and the only star in it not 
contained in the list of Eudoxus is Hporpuynrp (=e Virginis), the statement 
about which (1. 130) is obviously erroneous.’ 

The agreement on this point between the papyrus and Geminus’ references to 
Eudoxus is very striking. The intervals between the several entries (which 
in Geminus are measured by degrees, not, as in the papyrus, by days) are 
naturally different owing to the difference of latitude between Sais and the place 
in Asia Minor from which Eudoxus took his observations. But the order is the 
same in both, and there is only one clear instance in which the papyrus omits 
a reference to the rising or setting of a star that Geminus had inserted in his list 
from the calendar of Eudoxus (I. 107, note). Hence Geminus’ list provides 
certain restorations for those lacunae in the papyrus which mentioned risings 
or settings, while conversely two corruptions in the text of Geminus can be 
restored from the papyrus ; cf. notes on Il. 187 and 194. 

The papyrus is therefore to be regarded as a composition for teaching 
purposes, written at Sais about B.C. 300 by a follower of Eudoxus’ theory of 
astronomy, and is somewhat older than the analogous treatise based on Eudoxus 
in P. Par.t. In the passage common to both texts (Il. 41-54) may be recognized 
a more or less direct quotation from Eudoxus himself, but the presentation and 
application of his system are much disfigured in both papyri by frequent blunders, 
especially in regard to figures. The inconsistent dates in connexion with the 
equinoxes and the passing of the sun through the constellations, and the erroneous 
mention of Ipotpuvynrjp have already been mentioned. Cols. ii and iii of the 
introduction are very carelessly written, though some of the slips have been 
corrected by the writer himself. Mistakes in figures occur in Il. 62, 73, 91, and 
several times in the fractions of hours. Words are left out in ll. 88 and 199 ; 
cf. Il. 78 and 87, where an omission by the first hand is supplied by the corrector. 
The account of the summer solstice (ll. 120-2) is very inaccurately expressed, 
and other errors can be detected in Il. 79 and 83. All these mistakes are due 


to the compiler or the scribe ; and the compiler was, more probably than Eudoxus, 
responsible for the system of reckoning the changes in the length of day and 
night, which is only a rough approximation to the truth. The difference between 
the longest and shortest day being 14—10 = 4 hours, and five days being 
deducted from the year on account of the solstices, the change in the length 
of the day and night is treated as uniformly 745 or as hour, which is a convenient 
fraction for purposes of calculation, but ignores the obvious fact that the changes _ 
are much greater at the equinoxes than at the solstices. The uniformity of 
the changes, however, simplifies the restoration of many lacunae, since, where the 
figures relating to the day or night are preserved, they are sufficient to indicate 
the day of the month, when lost, and vice versa. 

Amongst the most valuable features of the papyrus are its references to 
Gracco-Egyptian festivals observed at Sais, of which we append a list :— 

(1) 1. 60. Choiak 26, Festival of Osiris. 


. 186. Mesore 2, Festival of Apollo (Horus). 
. 205. 4th intercalary day, Birthday of Isis. 

(2) 1. 62. Tubi 20, Festival of Phitorois. 
(3) 1.76. Mecheir 16 (19), Assembly at Sais in honour of Athena (Neith). 
(4) 1. 85. Mecheir 27, Festival of Prometheus-Iphthimis. 
(5) 1.92. Phamenoth 9, Festival of Edu (?). 
(6) 1.112. Pharmouthi 11, Feast of Hera (Mut ?). 
(7) 1.145. Pauni 16, Festival of Bubastis (Bast). 
(8) 1. 165. Epeiph [13 ?], Assembly at Sais in honour of Athena (Neith). 
(9) 1. 170. Epeiph 23, Festival of Anubis. 

Festivals in honour of deities whose names are lost also occurred on a day 
between Pauni 24 and Pauni 26 (1. 150) and on Pauni 27 (1. 154). The dates of 
most of these festivals, and even the names of the deities connected with nos. (2),(4), 
and (5), were previously unknown ; and except in the case of no. (11), which was 
universally observed, there are but few points of correspondence between the 
papyrus and other lists of festivals preserved in the Papyrus Sallier IV of 
Ramesside times (Chabas, Le Calendrier des jours fastes et néfastes), and the 
Ptolemaic calendars of Edfu, Esneh, and Dendereh (Brugsch, Dred Festkalender), 
while the list of festivals observed in Roman times at the temple of Socnopaeus 
in the Fayim (Wessely, Karanis und Soknopaiu Nesos, p. 76) is altogether 
different. On comparing the list in the papyrus with the statements concerning 
festivals in the Canopus Inscr., the two are consistent concerning the date of 
no. (1), the voyage of Osiris, but disagree in a curious manner with reference 
to no. (7), the festival of Bast. It is clear that there was much local variation 

27. CALENDAR 145 

with regard to the dates of the same festivals ; and though in the above list only 
nos. (3) and (8) are actually stated to be specially Saite feasts, and nos. (1) and 
(I1) are known to have been observed on the same days elsewhere, it is uncertain 
how far those remaining were observed outside the Saite nome on the days 
specified. The mention of a general illumination in connexion with no. (8) is 
particularly interesting, since this was the festival described by Herodotus ii. 62 ; 
cf. 1. 76, note. 

Fr. (a), Col. i. 1 Jew, 2 Jovs, 3 Jou, 4]. 4, 5 Jpas, 6-12 lost, 13 Ja, 14-15 lost, 
16 Ja, 17 Jou, 18 Jon. 

Pra (a): Colsir. iran) Colm; “PLATE VTII. 
T..|. lély Bde mdvy avip iva py d6€@ pak|pov 

20 copos Kai Huay ypelav Kal gévoy cou kara{voiv ? 
y vy \ X ae “~ 7 r 7 ? 
EXOV, EXOMEY yap Tov Za- 7) TOY popiwy Totk|iAla: 
itnv vomoy €rn 7révTe. 40 Tas avaykaias 7ulépas 
Tacav ovy tiv adnbet- feplovpey. yxpavT|as 
[av] piv eferiOc Kai en{i] Tais Kata oedjvaly 

roy EA 7Q7 > € 7 ¢ b] lau 

25 [To|8 épyou édikvvoy eé- HeEpats of adaTpoddlyot 
[k To] dApov Tod ALOivov Kal of lepoypappare|is 
(Os €xjadetro ‘EXAnviari 45 Mpos tas Odces Kal alva- 
‘yv|opov. edreyev 6é ToAaS TAY doTpaly. 

(Ovo) Tas mopelas eivar Tod Tas pev ovv éoprals 
ey 7 , \ \ , ” x >» x‘ 

30 Alou plat) pev THY SLopé- ayovoly KaT evlav7|ov 
(ovoay viKTa Kal npé- THL avTHL Hmépac Tlas 
pav piatv) d€ tiv Stopifov- 50 mAelotas ovOey talpad- 
cav xiuava Kai Oépos. AdooovTes er cdoTpale 
¢ > S) i? 3 x - ax b] ree 
as ovv nduvdépny axpl- 9 OvvovTt 7) avai ér- 

35 Béorata év édayxioros AovTt, {y}evias dé éolp- 
cuvayxyely Tas dyovow 

20. nunv Pap. This is a very early instance of the placing of a dot both above and 
below a letter in order to indicate that it was to be omitted ; cf. 15. 44, where dots are only 
placed above the cancelled letters. 25. |. eSetkvver. 28. yv|opnev: Pap. 34. 
axpt: Pap., the letters having been inserted later and the dots serving to separate them 
from the next column. 35. Finals of edayesrors inserted later. 37. 1. d0&n? 44. 
o above the line. 45. 1. dvoes. 48. v of emavroy corr. from r. Bi. py OL 
aotpew above the line. 



Fr. (4), 2nd hand. Colziv= sPLATEAV ITE. 
55 |), vdé wpar vy Ble’, ) O Hepa B'eNXg. 

(lg ‘Apxrodpos axpovuxos emiréAdet, 

9] vdé apav (BR Ve we, 4 8 Huépa taf id. 
ikl> Yrépavos axpwvuxos emTédAdet 
[klal Bopéat mvetovow opyiBiat, 7 vd§ 
60 [a@plav 1BLN, 4) 8 Hpépa waytX. ’Ooipss 
‘mleputde? Kal xpvoodv motov ega- 
[yelraz. ToPi (ec) &y rat Kpiat. xk tonpepia 
‘€alpiv, (| wv wpOv 18 Kal Hepa of, 
[klat €op[r}i) Pitwpdios. Ke Uderddes 

65 (dk povuylor) Sbvorfo|iv, 4 wE opv taB'q, 
[)] & hpépa [BiNpe. Meyxelp > év tae 
[Tlatvpo.. “Lddes axpdvuxor Svvovorr, 
[| wE apov waLiNe, 
[sixege bricae to) ery oke 547. € colr. from e. 65. ¢ COIT. 68. 1. Nq' for de. 
Brc(@): Col. v. 

Zale - 
*» 8 tpépa iBy we, Kat “Hpa 
70 Kdet , kal em(lonpaiver Kal 
votos mvel,| €ay d€ tmodvs 
yévntat Ta EK THS ynS 
4 4 , 7 
Katakdel. 10 Avpa axpo- 
vuxos emi\réA\Ae, 1) VdE 
Cts VAPLT. [pela e one CTL. 
wpav tayle pe, 7 8 Hpépa iBLi€o, 


\ re > 4 o~ 
Kal mavnyupis ev Sade ris 
‘AOnvas, Kat vorols mvei, 

éav O€ TOADS yé[nTa] TA (EK THS 

yns Katakdel. kl...--. ak po- 
80 vuxos emiTéAAEL, (1) VE POY la.., 
€ ’ t la fr 
THO, STYLE DAs COP) awe tet me ests : 
OY OUGLU PRO es eet tees ter 

73. 1. ts for 06. 75. 1. gq for 6. 78. yev[mrat above the line. 


Fr. (@). Col. vi. 
K€ Avpa axpovvyos Stver, 
 wd0E apav tasq, 4 8 Hpépa iBB UN) ¢, 
85 IIpopnbéws éopti bv Kadodow 
‘IpOipw, cai voros mvei, éav ot 
TWOAUS yévyTa Ta EK THS Ys KaTaKdel. 
Papevar [[.]] 3 év rois Acddpous. (ALE dia) 
avaTéAXrEl, ) VE a@pav Lap, 
90 9) 0 mpépa iBB'S'KG. € Sxoprios duos 
[apxlera Sbvev, 7) vdE wpav ty 
[4 © mpélpa ty. 0 mapa trois Ai- 
[yumrios) edv éopty. 18 Sxopmios 
[e@tos Odos] Sbver, 4 WE dpav 1B’5"q’, 
95 [y © tuépa tly(N{XwWe. wy Wreddes 
‘é@tat emiTed Aovowy. 

87. yevnra above the line, 89. 1. we’ for ep’. go. & corr. 
95. The scribe apparently began to correct the superfluous X’ into p. 

Firs, (¢)-and (/). Col. vii. 
4 lines lost. 
tor | 23 letters jou 
[ : ]-Xq 
_— va 
[ > ewe 
105 | ; | 
Cereals CdS Ob ele vba es BASE ‘vs €xovTa. 

Pappod, Oc €ly rat Kialpxiver y. ‘Aeris 
akpovuxos emitérAeL, 7) VdE 
apav t¥Xq, 4 8 Hpepa wycg pe. 
109. |. ce’ for ge. 


gt. |. ca for cy. 


Frs. (¢), (g), (2). Col. viii. 

Va > 

110 1a Aeris ak[pov|vxos € 
 vo0é dpav (te, 4 8) tpépa ryB'i fa’ bX’, 
[klat ris “Hpas |... .|uxeta. 


(¢ ’Apiov édltos emiré|drcL, 1) dE 
apav we’, yO [Hypepla vyh' OE’. 
115 kK %) vdvE apay 1, 7} 8 Hpépa 10, 

‘ J ~ , ~ 3 la 

6 Hros huépas y. (Ka) 7 vv apo 1, 
* 8 wpépa 0. KB 4% WE por 4, 
» O tfyépa 6. Ky 7 vd§ @paor tb, 
120 7) © wpépa td. kd Hdrlov TpoTral 
els Oépos Kal wd pel(oly) yiverat 
ras tpépas Spas Swdexatnpopov pe, 
Fr. (2). Col. ix. 

kal ylverat 1 w0é wpdy Léep, 
4 8 jpépa wyB'o'K'G. ke 
125 érnolat apxovTat mvely 
kal 6 ToTapos apxer|ale 
avaBatver, ) vv0E @pov iN'q’ 
4 8 tpépa tyB OX pr’. 
Tlaxavs ¢ €v TOL Aéovtt. 
130 IIporpyyntis avarédreL, 
woe aplaly ON pT, 
4 8 Hepa [tyBX]q. 8 ‘Dpiwv (Edr0s) 
dros avarléAXeL,| 7 vds 
dpav uf le, 4 8 | hepa tyZiXg. 

135 in Kvov (Gus) aviaré|AAet, 7 VdE 


Clim r Ate, 
@pav \ILAME, 

123. l. pe for ey’. 

2f. CALENDAR 149 

Frs. (2), (2), (2). Coli-x, 

[4 8 Hpépa tyy|s. Tain [8 
[ev tHe ITapOé|velc. 
[Otver, 4h wd dpaly] BENG’, 

140 [9 6 Hpépa iyie i [é I. J] 
[lg Lrépavos| éGuols) 

(dvvet, 4 mee 


@p|\ov Las q ; 

‘Aleros 7@to|s 

(7 8| hpepa BRU NX Le’, 
145 Biov\Bdéor.s €o pry. 

x.| Aeris é@uos 

dvvel, 7 wvé 

@pav tay|..., 

7 8 apépa BZ... ., 

197. 1.6 ford: 

Fr. (72). Colext. 

WOM leita se, = €lopT 7. 
ike Avpa édia) dvbvet, 
[) v0é dpor| tayipee, 
[) O Hepa) Bareg, 

[..- emlon|maiver, 
[} wd apaly cay ire, 
[7 0 huépa sB]Zq’. 
(Ereid . &v Thais 
160 [xnAais Tod X|xopriov, 
[. . Apkrotpos é@|ios 
[emiréAAEL, ] 

152, IL. tee for lye. 

Fr. (m). Col. xiii. 
[kg Alg dxpdvuxos | 
[émiTéAAeL, | 
[) wE dpav iBie we’,] 
180 4 8 Hpépa taP'eX a’. 
Meoopeit B ev rat 

Skoptriot. Tdeddes 

Fr. (7). Collsdi: 
9 (6&) wv0E apav aB’.., 

7 8 wpépa iB... , 

165 Kal €vy Yau mavyylvpes 
Adnvas kal dAdyvous 
Kdovol KaTa& Tiv x@pav, 
Kat 6 moTapos émionpaiver 

~ ‘ bl 4 
mpos THY avaéBaow. 
3 ? Ua 

170 Ky tonpepia POtvorwpivy, 
7 vvE @pov if, 

4 8 hpépa 0B, 

Tod ‘AvotBios éopr7, 

Kal 6 ToTapos ém- 
7 \ ss 

175 onpaiver mpos Thy 
J , 

158. g corr. 

Fr. (m). Col. xiv. 


[apxerar ddveuv,| 
[7 w0E apav iBy we’,] 

4 8 hpépa taliNXg.| 
18 Skoprios bAos dvvet, 
195 % voé wpav iby IX, 

4 8 ipépa taLX. 


akp@vuxXol EemlTEANOVLY, i( ‘Tades axpwvvy|ole 
) vdé adpav Be’, émlTéAAOVCLY, 
185 9 8 hpépa waB'iN,  vdeé dpav iBLX. 
"ArréANwvos €0pT?. 200 €v Tals € 7mépals 
& Srépavos édios em- Tais (ém\ayopevats, 
réAdet, 4) VdE dpdv BENG, 6 "Apxrotpos akpavuxos 
4 8 hepa wave pe’. Svver,  vdé apdv iBB'EX A, 
190 0 Skoprios axpwvuxos 4 8 Hpépa wae we, 
205 Kal ths “Iows yevebALa 
Frs. (7) and (0). Col. i. Col. ii. 

|. Kab& w. |. .JOvov 
Toc x ionpe|pia €lapiv7j 
210 Tpolrav Oepiyioy . . «voy 

| ky Tov[....|. ow 5 , , 
hee 7 
eal ] 215 dem . [ 

Oia TO mpoc.... | 

Fr. (9). Fr. (9). 
7( 225 |v érav 
Hpepov.[...-- ies [ete ae |oeAnv 
mévre Tay em|ayouer[wv ie 
220 év T@L eviauTal ev als. | jro 
Tov HAtoy avaTéAAew lave 
ey THL mropetar THL Stopt- 230 |vov 
covont Jerou 
ju e€ 

27. CALENDAR 151 

19-54. ‘ Sais a wise man and a friend of mine, for I have been in the Saite 
nome for five years. He expounded to me the whole truth, and illustrated it in practice 
from the stone dial which is called in Greek a “ gnomon.” He said that the courses of the 
sun were two, one dividing night and day and one dividing winter and summer. Accordingly, 
to summarize his information as accurately as I could in the shortest space, in order that 
the intricacy of the fractions may not appear to you a long and unfamiliar thing to under- 
stand (?), I will divide the necessary days. The astronomers and sacred scribes use the 
lunar days for the settings and risings of the stars. They therefore keep most of the 
festivals annually on the same day, without alterations owing to the setting or rising of 
a star; but some festivals they keep...’ 

1g. aynp: a disciple of Eudoxus is probably meant ; cf. introd. 

28-33. Cf. P. Par. 1. 488-491 mopeia [8€ rod] Hdiov dvo" pia pev 7 dvopi fovea) +d Oépos 
kat TOV xed par |ar, pia S€ 1) vixta Kat 7 péplay, 

34-41. The construction of this passage, which seems to be all one sentence and 
to require some correction, is obscure. The pépa apparently refer to the fractions of the 
hours of the nights and days, and the general purport of the sentence seems to be that the 
writer, in order to avoid prolixity and a multitude of complicated fractions, would mention 
in his calendar only the more important days. This is in actual agreement with the 
calendar, which rarely notices days on which there was nothing more remarkable 
to record than the length of the night and day. The supplements proposed for Il. 38— 
40 will make lines 37—9 longer by two or three letters than ll. 41 sqq. Perhaps some letters 
at the end of those three lines were first omitted and then supplied in the margin, as 
has happened in ll. 34-5. The future tense pepotpev in the apodosis after the imperfect 
nouvapny is awkward, but the alteration of cvvayayeiv to auvnyayov Would make the connexion 
of peptotper with the preceding lines still more difficult. 

41-54. Cf. P. Par. 1. 71-80 of d€ do[rpolA{d}you Kai of iepoypapplareis] y|pav|rai rais Kata 


ceAry\n[y| julélpars Kal dyovoe mavdnyle|kas éop|ras twas pev os evontoO|n ta S€ karaxuTnpia Kal 
Kuvos dvatodjy Kai oeAnvata kata Oeioy (1. Oedv, Blass) dvadeydpevor ras jépas ék tov Alyunrior, 
a passage which agrees closely with our papyrus and clearly indicates their common 
source. Combining the information from both, the meaning is that the days on which the 
risings or settings of stars took place were designated by the ordinary months, and were 
therefore continually changing. Most of the annual festivals in Egypt were kept according 
to the aunus vagus of 365 days without reference to the stars, the movements of which took 
place a day later on the calendar every four years. Certain festivals, however, were 
observed according to the sidereal year of 3654 days. The Paris papyrus specifies three 
of these, the fétes at the Nile rising, the rising of Sirius, and some festival connected with 
the moon; and 27 may have done the same in the next column, which may also well 
have contained a passage corresponding to P. Par. 1. 80-85, concerning the day to be 
intercalated once in every four years. The use of the adjective mdeicras for the festivals 
observed on the annus vagus confirms the view that the employment of the year of 365 
days in Egypt, however ancient, remained quite exceptional, in spite of the efforts of Euer- 
getes, down to the reform of the calendar by Augustus; cf. Dittenberger’s note Orzensis 
Gr. Inscr. 1. p. 102. The phrase rais xara ceAnyny jepas is rather difficult. The extract 
from the Paris papyrus quoted above, in which it also occurs, immediately follows a passage 
describing the difference between the lunar year of 354 days and the solar year of 365. 
But if ‘the days according to the moon’ are connected with the lunar year, the statement 
concerning the astronomers and sacred scribes is not only obviously incorrect but has no 
relation to what follows. It is therefore preferable to suppose that the phrase ai cara oeAnvny 


‘pep is in both passages used loosely for ‘ the days of the month’ without any real reference 
to the moon. 

53. {ypévias: for another example in this volume of y inserted between vowels cf. 
62. 8 dpyryepet. The practice is common in the Tebtunis papyri of the second century B. c. 

g5—205. *(Choiak 1st:)... The night is 134. hours, the day 1044. 16th, Arcturus 
rises in the evening. The night is 1234 hours, the day 1141, 26th, Corona rises in 
the evening, and the north winds blow which bring the birds. The night is 12,8; hours 
and the day 117%. Osiris circumnavigates, and the golden boat is brought out. 

‘Tubi sth, the sun enters Aries. 20th, spring equinox. The night is 12 hours and 
the day 12 hours. Feast of Phitorois. 27th, Pleiades set in the evening. The night is 
1128 hours, the day 124%. | 

‘Mecheir 6th, the sun enters Taurus. Hyades set in the evening. The night is 1132 
hours, the day 1238; and Hera burns (?), and there are indications, and the south wind 
blows. If it becomes violent it burns up the fruits of the earth. rgth (16th ?), Lyra rises 
in the evening. The night is 1132 hours, the day 1238; and there is an assembly at Sais 
in honour of Athena, and the south wind blows. If it becomes violent it burns up the 
fruits of the earth.  2/.|th, Orion (?) rises (sets?) in the evening. The night is 11{ | 
hours, the day 12{ | hours,... 27th, Lyra (Canis?) sets in the evening. The night is 117% 
hours, the day 1292. Feast of Prometheus whom they call Iphthimis, and the south wind 
blows. If it becomes violent it burns up the fruits of the earth. 

‘Phamenoth 4th, the sun enters Gemini. Capella rises in the morning. The night is 
11, hours, the day 123%. 5th, Scorpio begins to set in the morning. The night is 11 
hours, the day 13. 9th, feast of Edu(?) among the Egyptians. 12th, Scorpio sets 
completely in the morning. ‘The night is 1038 hours, the day 134%. 13th, Pleiades rise 
in the morning. (The night is 103% hours, the day 137%)... 

‘Pharmouthi 3rd, the sun enters Cancer. Aquila rises in the evening. The night is 
1017 hours, the day 1348. 11th, Delphinus rises in the evening. The night is 10% hours, 
the day 134, and there is the ,.. of Hera. 17th, Orion rises in the morning. The night 
is 10;4, hours, the day 1374. 2oth, the night is 10 hours, the day 14, and the sun rises 
in the same place for 3 days. rst, the night is ro hours, the day 14. 22nd, the night is 
ro hours, the day 14. 23rd, the night is ro hours, the day 14. 24th, summer solstice, 
and the night gains upon the day by #5 of an hour which is {35 of an (equinoctial) day ; 
and the night is ro@; hours, the day 1344. 25th, the etesian winds begin to blow, and 
the river begins to rise. The night is 107; hours, the day 1333. 

‘Pachon 6th, the sun enters Leo. Vindemitor rises(?). The night is 1043 hours, the 
day 1332. oth, Orion rises completely in the morning. The night is 101 hours, the 
day 1322. 18th, Canis rises in the morning. The night is ro$ hours, the day 13$. 

‘Pauni 4th, the sun enters Virgo. Aquila sets in the morning. The night is 109% 
hours, the day 13z4;. 16th, Corona sets in the morning. The night is 113% hours, the 
day 1232. Feast of Bubastis. 2|.'th, Delphinus sets in the morning. The night is 11 | 
hours, the day r2/ |. Feast of... 27th, Lyra sets in the morning. The night is ees 
hours, the day 1228. Feast of ... 3oth, great..., there are indications. The night is 
1122 hours, the day 1233. 

‘Epeiph {.|, the sun enters the claws of Scorpio. [13th?], Arcturus rises in the 
morming. ‘The night is r1/ | hours, the day ra{ |; and there is an assembly at Sais in 
honour of Athena, and they burn lamps throughout the country, and the river gives 
indications of rising. 23rd, autumnal equinox. The night is 12 hours, the day 12 hours. 
Feast of Anubis, and the river gives indications of rising. 27th, Capella rises in the 
evening. The night is 127, the day 1134. 

Dl (QA EIEIN OVA ke 153 

‘Mesore 2nd, the sun enters Scorpio. Pleiades rise in the evening. The night 
is 124 hours, the day 114. Feast of Apollo. 4th, Corona rises in the morning. The 
night is 1232 hours, the day 113%. gth, Scorpio begins to set in the evening. The night 
is 1248 hours, the day 1122. 14th, Scorpio sets completely. The night is 12924 hours, 
the day 1124. 17th, Hyades rise in the evening. The night is 1224 hours, (the 
day 1124), 

‘In the 5 intercalary days: 4th, Arcturus sets in the evening. The night is 1244 
hours, the day 114; and the birthday festival of Isis takes place.’ 

55. The length of the night and day shows that the day in question must be Choiak r, 
since the compiler of the calendar treats the difference in length between two successive 
nights or days as uniformly 7 hour; cf. ]. 122 and p. 144. 

56. Cf. Geminus (IxOves 8.) EvddE@ S€ ApKtodpos dxpdvuxos emuréANer kal verdos yiverat Kat 
xeAWav paiverat kai tas émopévas jpéepas XN’ Bopéar mveovar kai padiota ai mpoopyOiar Kadovpevat. 

dxpwvuxes emitéAdec: Whatever the technical meaning of dxpdvvyos (as it is generally 
spelled) in later Greek astronomers may have been, there is no doubt that Eudoxus, as 
both the papyrus and Geminus bear witness, used it as equivalent to €o7épos, and that 
the risings and settings recorded in the papyrus mean the apparent or heliacal ones, not the 
true. No technical distinction is intended by the compiler of the calendar between emcréAXeuw 
and avaréAXew, which occurs in Il. 89, 116, 130, &c. 

58. Cf. Gem. (IyOves) ev b€ 7H Ka Evddé@ Erepavos axpdvuxos emirehret. Gpxovtar opybiat 

60. On the zepimdAovs of Osiris see Plut. De Jszde ef Osiride, 13. The eEaywyn of 
the sacred boat took place according to the papyrus on Choiak 26, while according 
to the Canopus Inscr, |, 51 the advaywy) tod iepod mAolov rod ’Ovelpos occurred on 
Choiak 29. The two statements are perfectly consistent on the view that the festival 
lasted 4 days; the papyrus refers to the beginning of the voyage, the Canopus Inscr. to 
the return of the sacred boat at the end of the festival. Plutarch, of. cz¢. 39, states that the 
mourning for Osiris occupied four days, but refers the production of the sacred boat to 
the third day. His date for the festival, Athur 17-20, nominally differs widely from the 
Ptolemaic evidence owing to his employment of the Julian calendar (a fact which 
Wiedemann seems to leave out of account in his discussion of the date of the Osiris 
festival, Herodots zwettes Buch, pp. 261-2); but the divergence is really slight, for Athur 17 
on the Julian calendar coincided with Choiak 26 of the vague year in a.p. 128, which is 
not long after Plutarch. At Esneh the feast of Sokar, the Memphite god of the dead, 
identified with Osiris in later times, also took place on Choiak 26. 

62. TvBi Ce): it is clear from the parallel passages (Il. 66, 88, 129, 181) that a number 
has dropped out after Td, and «, which would easily have been omitted owing to the 
ev following, can be restored with practical certainty because, firstly, the sun entered 
Taurus on Mecheir 6 (1. 66), and it must therefore have entered Aries about 30 days 
(possibly 29 or 31) previously, and, secondly, the equinox, which took place on Tubi 20 
(l. 62), was placed by Eudoxus in the middle of Aries (15°; cf. introd.), so that the sun 
must have entered Aries about 15 days before the zoth. In ]. 107 we read @appod|é €|v 
tat K[alpkiver y. Acros «.7.., and suppose that y is misplaced and ought to have preceded 
év tat Kapxiver. The size of the lacuna after @appov suits 3 letters much better than 4, and 
if Dappouid . e\y or Happowd ¢.) é€\ (the figure would have to be a or 8) be read, the 
already considerable disparity between the times during which the sun was in Gemini and 
Cancer respectively would be still further increased; cf. p. 142. 

64. Pirwpwos: the name of this deity is new. ‘There is very likely a connexion 
between this festival and the ‘ festival of the child at the town of Sais’ which took place on 


Tubi 20 according to the Esneh calendar. Was Phitorois the son of Neith, the principal 
deity of Sais? 

x Tderddes xt. cf. Gem. (Kptds) cy. Trerades axpdvuxoe Stivovor kat ’Qpiav dpxerar dvveuw. 

67. Cf. Gem. (Kptés) ka. ‘Yades axpdvuxor Sivovow. 

69. “Hpa xdec. kat emtonpaiver : after «dec is a smudge, and the letter between it and kai 
may have been intended to be erased; but the ink has run in several places in this 
column. 1. 112 Tis “Hpas seems to refer to the goddess, but "Hpa is here more probably 
the planet Venus or a constellation ; cf. Arist. de Mundo p. 392 A 27 6 tov Swaddpov bv 
’Adpodirns of S€ “Hpas mpocayopevovow, P. Oxy. 731. 6 tots dorpos “Hpas. For the archaic 
form of xdee cf. caraxdec in I}. 73 and 79, and xdovor 1. 167. émtonpaiver, which occurs 
in ll. 168 and 174 6 mortapos éemtonpaiver mpos thy avaBaow, not in connexion with an 
astronomical phenomenon, means here probably, as often in the calendars of Ptolemy and 
Geminus, an indication with regard to the weather (sc. wind, thunder, rain, &c.). The 
word in this sense seems always to be used absolutely, without a subject. 

73. 6: this conflicts with the numbers in |. 75, which indicate the 16th; probably 
therefore ts should be read here. 

Avpa: cf. Gem. (Kptés) x, Avpa axpdvuxos emredret. 

76. Athena at Sais was the goddess Neith (cf. Wiedemann, of. cét., p. 259), also 
identified in Roman times with Isis; cf. Plut. De Zsede ef Ostride, 9. The papyrus mentions 
another assembly in her honour in Epeiph (Il. 165-6), when there was a general Aapmadn- 
gopia; and no doubt that was the festival to which Herodotus was referring in his 
description of the Aauradnpopia at Sais in ii. 62, which is to be connected closely with his 
general statement in ii. 59 és Saw wodw 1H ’AOnvain maynyvpifovor rather than, as has been 
done by Wiedemann and others, with the illuminations at the festival of Osiris in Choiak. 
The day of general illumination, as now appears clearly from the papyrus, was in honour 
of Neith, not of Osiris. 

The festival of Neith on Mecheir 16 was not known previously, but the Esneh 
calendar mentions one on Mecheir 8. That found in |. 165 is to be connected with 
another feast of Neith on Epeiph 13, also mentioned in the Esneh calendar; ey may even 
be the number lost in |. 161. 

79. «| refers to the date, which may be any day between the 2zoth and 26th; cf. 
1. 83. Geminus does not quote from Eudoxus at this point any star rising in the evening 
soon after Lyra, but ’Qpiwv axpévuxos diver, Ki@v dxpdvuxos diver and Até éda émtré\Xec OCCUT 
between the evening rising of Lyra (cf. ]. 73) and the morning setting of Scorpio (cf. 
]. 90). The setting of Canis and rising of Capella are probably referred to in Il. 83 and 
89, where in both cases the papyrus is corrupt; and here too, probably, there is an error 
and ’Qpiwy axpavuxos diver, NOt emiTéAAeL, WAS Meant. 

82. Perhaps xalra thy yopav; cf. 1. 167. <A festival is probably referred to, possibly 
that of ‘the strong one’; cf. note on ]. 85. 

83. Avpa axpavuyos dive: this statement cannot be correct in view of the fact that 
the evening rising of Lyra had taken place only 8 days previously (I. 73). Probably Kio» 
should be substituted for Avpa, and the papyrus brought into conformity with Geminus’ 
statements about the sequence of the risings and settings on Eudoxus’ calendar at this 
point; cf. ll. 79 and 89, notes. 

85. The identification of Prometheus with an Egyptian deity and the name of 
the latter, Iphthimis, are both new. Mr. F. LI. Griffith would explain “IP@tuis as a 
Graecized form of Nefertem, son of Ptah, whose name occurs as -evrnus at the end of 
compound names; he supposes that Nefer- was cut down to Ef- and the name pronounced 
Efteme, giving rise to two slightly different transliterations into Greek, as e.g. in the 
parallel forms Ivapws and -avapavs, The calendars of Esneh, Edfu, and Dendereh mention 

27. CALENDAR 155 

no festival on Mecheir 27; but the Papyrus Sallier IV mentions a festival of Sokar on 
that day, and the Edfu calendar a festival of Ptah on Mecheir 28 and 29, while al] three 
Ptolemaic calendars refer to a festival of ‘the strong one’ (the translation is doubtful 
according to Griffith; the word might mean ‘victory’ or ‘battle’) on Mecheir 21, the 
Edfu calendar adding that it was observed throughout Egypt. It is possible that there 
is some connexion between the festival of ‘the strong one’ and the ceremony referred to 
in ]. 82, but the feast of Iphthimis is in any case probably different. 

89. The name of the star rising has been omitted before avaré\Xe. We restore 
Até éova from Geminus; cf.1.79, note. avareAXe and émréAdew are sometimes distinguished 
by later astronomers, and referred respectively to the true and apparent risings, but it 
is clear that the papyrus uses the two terms indiscriminately, meaning the apparent rising 
in both cases; cf. |. 2, note. 

go. Cf. Gem. (Taipos) sa. Skopmios égos dive Gpxera. In the case of constellations 
with several very ee stars, it was necessary to distinguish the Degmning from the end of 
the rising or setting; cf. 1. 93. 

92-3. “Edu or fens seems to be the name of a unknown Bey ptian deity. [yumreors] is 
quite sufficient for the lacuna, but it is possible that one more letter is lost. 

93-4. Cf. Gem. (Tadpos) ka. Skoprios é@os ddos Suva, and note on |. go. 
95-6. Cf. Gem. (Taipos) KB. TlAerades eerelNGb kal emeonpaiver, The length of the 
night oe day can be restored: 7 w& par ytN we, 7 8 qpepa Ws 4 

107. Cf. note on |. 62 and Gem. (Aidupor) (.  *Aerds dxpdvuxos éemrehder. Between 
this and the entry corresponding to that in 1. rro Geminus inserts from Eudoxus (Aidvpor) 
ty. “Apkrovpos égos duvet, the only certain reference to the stars on Eudoxus’ calendar which 
is omitted in the papyrus. 

110. Cf. Gem. (Aidvpor) mm. Aeris axpdvuxos emredXet. 

112. In place of « before -yea, y or @ or possibly 7 can be read. The word seems to 
refer to a festival in honour of Hera, who at Thebes was identified with Mat. The birth 
of that goddess was apparently celebrated in Pharmouthi (cf. Brugsch, Thesaurus, p. 523), 
and may be referred to here, though yevéOAca is the word used for the birthday of Isis 
in 1. 205. 

113. Cf. Gem. (Aidvpor) xd. "OQplwv apyerar emireAdew. 

116-22. Cf. introd. and the account of the 7Aiov mepeia in P. Par. 1, 8-51. Lines 
I2I—2 are very inaccurately expressed. What the writer meant was ae from the 24th of 
Pharmouthi the nights begin to lengthen and the days to diminish by 7 45 hour per diem, but 
his actual statement 7 wé (which on the 23rd is ro hours long) pei{or yiverat tis nuepas (which 
on the 23rd is 14 hours Jong) is highly ambiguous. Nor does he seem to be justified in 
his use of pee eoeeee épas. An hour might be 54; of the period of light irrespective of 
its length or 35 of the average, i.e. equinoctial, day, and it is of course 4’; hour in the latter 
sense which ‘throughout the calendar the writer actually adds to or “subtracts from the 
length of days, though this system is inaccurate ; cf. p. 144. But then ionuepiwod would be 
the right word to use here, not dwdexarnpdpov, especially as the ‘day’ in 1. 122 contains 14, 
not 12, hours. 

124-7. On the view that the papyrus dates refer to the years 301-298 B.C., Phar- 
mouthi 25, on which day the river is stated to have begun to rise, is June 28. The attain- 
ment of its greatest height nearly two months later is apparently referred to in ll. 168-76. 
The Canopus Inscr. 1]. 37-8 makes the rise begin on Pauni 1, i.e. July rg. 

130. Lporpvyntns dvateAkec: Geminus has no entry concerning the stars on Eudoxus’ 
calendar between the beginning and completion of the rising of Orion (cf. ll. 113 and 132), 
and nowhere mentions the star Iporpuyntnp (the more usual form) in connexion with 
Eudoxus. From Smyly’s calculations (cf. p. 143) it appears that this statement of the 


papyrus must be erroneous, whether ێ1os or axpovuxos be supplied. Pliny, est, Mat. xviii 
§ 310 (Wachsmuth, Lydus, &c., p. 328), says correctly that in Egypt Vindemitor rose on 
Sept. 5, or two months later than the date found in the papyrus. 

132~3. Cf. Gem. (Kapkivos) sa. "Qpiwv épos ddos emiréAXet, 

135. Cf. Gem. (Kapkivos) K(, Ktwv épos emrednet. 

138. Cf. Gem. (Adv) «. "Aeros Eos Svvet. 

141. Cf. Gem. (Agar) «.  Srédavos dvvee. 

145. Pauni 16 was also the day of a festival of Bast at Esneh ; the statement that the 
FEsneh calendar mentions a second festival in her honour on Pauni 30 (Dittenberger, Orzentd. 
Gr. Inscr. I, p. 103) is erroneous. The Canopus Inscr., which in 1. 37 mentions 
a puxpa and peydda BovBdora, gives a different date, Pauni 1, for both, which is remarkable 
seeing that Pauni 16 is attested both before and after the date of the inscription. 

146. x|.]: the earliest day in Pauni on which 4 appears as a fraction of the night is 
the 23rd, the earliest on which 2 disappears as a fraction of the day is the 24th. The date 
in question therefore must-be the 24th, 25th, or 26th. 

Aedpis: cf. Gem. (Agar) uy. Acris Epos diver. 

150. Cf. note on I. 154. 

151. Cf. Gem. (Aor) KB. Avpa épos duvet kai emonpaier 

154. This festival is to be assigned to Pauni 27 rather than to Pauni 30, the day to 
which the figures in Il. 157-8 refer, for throughout the papyrus the mentions of festivals 
follow the details about the length of night and day. The Dendereh calendar mentions 
a great feast of Hathor and Horus on the last four days of Pauni, and ’Adpodérn|s or 
"Ard\A@vo|s may have occurred here or in ], 150. The Esneh calendar mentions a festival 
of Sochet on Pauni 30, there having been already a festival of that goddess on Pauni 16. 

156. For emon|paive ; cf. Gem. (Agr) «0. émonuaiver, and note on I. 69. 

159. The number lost is 8, y, or 5; cf. ll. 137 and 181, and p. 142. The ‘ claws ot 
Scorpio’ take the place of Libra; cf. Gem. (Zuyés) uf. — Kadinn@ xndal dipxovra dvareAdoveat. 

161. Perhaps (‘Ezeif) ty should be restored at the beginning of the line, there being 
a festival of Neith at Esneh on that day; cf. ]. 76, note. 

161-2. Cf, Gem. (Aéwv) 6. "Apkrodpos egos emuredNet, 

166. Avdxvous kdovow: cf. Hdt. ii. 62, and note on |. 76. 

168—9. This entry ‘ the river gives indication of rising,’ which is repeated in ll. 174-6, 
refers apparently to the flood reaching its full height, which it usually does early in 
October. Epeiph 23, the date to which ll. 174-6 belong, being the day of the autumn 
equinox, was probably Sept. 27. 

173. This date of the Anubis festival, Epeiph 23, was previously unknown, 

77-8. Cf. Gem. (Zuyds) 6. AtE axpdvuyos éruredXet, 

182-3. Cf. Gem. (Zuyds) n.  TderdSes émeredXovor. 

186. ’Awé\Awvos éopry: this date, Mesore 2, for the Horus festival is new. 

187. Cf. Gem. (Zvyds) ev 8€ TH « EVddE@ éGos enit\det. The entry clearly corresponds to 
that in the papyrus, and the omitted name of the constellation is to be restored Erépavos, 
as Pontedera had already proposed. 

190-1. Cf. ]. go, note, and Gem. (Zuyés) «8. Skoprios dxpévuxos apxerat dvvew. 

194. Cf. Gem. (Zvyds) ef. Skopmios dxpdvuxos AiE 6dos dvver, which requires correction. 
The papyrus confirms Wachsmuth’s view that Avé is to be omitted. 

197. Cf. Gem. (Zuyés) KB. “Yades axpdvuxor emirédovow, 

199. The length of the day has been omitted; insert (1 8 jpépa cay’). 

202. Cf. Gem. (Skopmios) n. "Apxrodpos axpévuxos duvet, 

205. The birthday of Isis on the 4th intercalary day is mentioned in the Papyrus 
Sallier IV, the Esneh, Edfu, and Dendereh calendars, and by Plutarch, De Zszde ef Ostride, 12. 


209. To|% «: cf. 1. 62. 

211. "Ene is a probable restoration before xy or after rov, since the autumn equinox 
took place on Epeiph 23; cf. 1. 170. 

212. The traces of a letter would suit y with a stroke over it, i.e. the figure 3. 

214-23. This fragment at first sight seems to be concerned with the five intercalary 
days at the end of Mesore, but it is difficult to connect these with the qopeia of the sun, 
which divides either summer and winter or day and night (cf. Il. 29-33). Hence we are 
more disposed to regard the five days as the three days at the summer solstice (cf. Il. 116- 
20) and the two at the winter solstice, upon which the sun rises é« rod atrod (1, 116); these 
have to be added to the 360 days upon which the day or night increased by 7; hour (cf, Il. 
121~2 and introd.) in order to make up the full year of 365 days. But if a figure followed 
jpepov in |, 218 the meaning would be something quite different. It is not certain that any 
letter was written after ais in 1. 220, though {yx is possible. 



Mummy 97. Breadth 6-7 cm. About B.c. 265. 

Notwithstanding its unfortunate condition this papyrus, which refers to the 
tribal organization of some civic polity, is of no small interest. The style is that 
of an ordinance (ll. 7-8); and the natural inference is that these fragments 
belong to a royal edict regulating the constitution of one of the Greek cities of 
- Egypt. The alternative is to suppose that they come from some literary work 
in which a municipal law was quoted at length. Palaeographical considerations 
do not materially assist a decision between these two possibilities. The sloping 
handwriting, which is of a good size and, like other papyri from Mummy 97, of an 
early period (cf. 64 and 92), is clear and careful; but not more regular than that of 
many other non-literary papyri, and certainly not of a marked literary character. 
The feature which is least suggestive of an edict is the narrowness of the column, 
which is not usual in non-literary documents of any length. But that is a quite 
inconclusive argument; while in favour of the more obvious hypothesis it is 
worth noting that a fragment of another series of ordinances (29) was obtained 
from the same mummy as this. Assuming then that we have here part of an 
ordinance promulgated in Egypt, the question remains to what city did it refer. 
The choice lies between Alexandria and the still more recent foundation 

158 GU Mot Bel I ae e 

Ptolemais, and, so far as existing evidence goes, turns largely upon the inter- 
pretation of a fragment of Satyrus, [epi dywv “AdreEavdpewv, quoted by Theophilus, 
Ad Autolyc. Il. p. 94 (Miller, Hist. Gr. Frag. III. p. 164). In the constitution 
described by the papyrus the tribes were five in number, each tribe containing 
twelve demes, and each deme twelve phratries (ll. 10 sqq.). The number of 
tribes at Alexandria and Ptolemais is unknown (cf. Kenyon, Archiv, II. pp. 70 
sqq.)'; but Satyrus in the passage cited enumerates eight demes of the Alexandrian 
tribe Avoyvoia, and if his meaning be that it contained only eight then our 
papyrus cannot refer to Alexandria. But this is not a necessary inference from 
Satyrus’ words. His point is that Ptolemy Philopator, claiming descent from 
Dionysus, gave precedence to the Dionysian tribe, and that the eight deme-names 
mentioned were all connected with the god. But it is not stated that all the 
demes of the tribe were so connected, and had others existed in which the 
connexion could not be traced, there would have been no occasion to refer to 
them. The excerpt from Satyrus therefore hardly does more than create a slight 
presumption in favour of Ptolemais as the subject of these ordinances, though 
the presumption is somewhat strengthened by the consideration of @ priori 
probability ; for Soter’s creation was still so young that regulations like the 
present concerning it might be expected to occur. The apparent allusion in 
ll. 1-3 to previous ordinances forbids us to regard 28 as forming part of Soter’s 
original legislation. On the other hand in favour cf Alexandria can be adduced 
the fact that the city is known from Ps. Callisthenes i. 32 to have been divided 
into five regions numbered A, B, I, A, E, with which the five tribes mentioned 
in the papyrus may have been connected. 

Frs. (a), (0), and (c). 
ayvo@olw T& TE yeEr[ OueE- 
va avTois TE KH’... ... 

MDA PEUTIC Irie le m1 eee eee 
a Eae" leave versal] voy | cuisiteremes are seo 


, \ 4 [ cr \ 
Tau els TaS Hparplals K al 

4 a x “A 
yvopl(ntra: vmr0 Tey 
dpatopov Ovérwoay Kai 
guvéoTw@oav To|.|Te.. . 
[....a@70 Gvdns exdor ns 

1 To the three there mentioned, Acov’atos, HpomanmoceBdoreios, and MroAepaievs, with perhaps a fourth 
vdafidarddooeos, may now be added Movoorarépeos, which occurs in P, Tebt. II. 316. 



Ee (es Col. i 




Hpéeplas Pparpar dbo. em{et- 
67) yap v\rdpxovow gv{Aai 
fev mévTe TovTwy (de 

év éxdlalrne dudne d7{j.01 
pev oe pparpalt de 
Od\bexa tale) Sypole [[exa- 
[[orax]] @ore yiverOar plev 
Onpous €EjKovTa di pa- 

tpas 6&€ émtakocias «i|Koct, 
Umapxovody de eils (TOY 
év[tjaurov (7 \uepaly Tpla- 
kogimy é€jkovTa, ov{uB7- 
oeTal TOV EMTAKO| clo 
eiko[or] pparpi@v ¢...... 
cecOat tiv Hpmépaly 

OUOm TOES. (etell te: (enaewen sheen 
vos Ki 15 letters 

oKe . [ 

Fr: (2). 
30 lope 
Col. ii. 

35 €| 


Pre (7)s 

» UTA 

Fr, (4). 

jooay Ol. 
| . 



ow | 


160 FB ET SPAR kel 

Fr. (2). Fr. (2) 
J}. 9y Jaud{ 
45 ov In 

‘,..(in order that) they may not be ignorant of what has been done and written 
affecting them ... to the phratries and be recognized by the members of the phratries, let 
them sacrifice, and let 2 phratries from a tribe associate each day. For since there are 
5 tribes, and in each tribe 12 demes, and in the deme 12 phratries, it follows that there will 
be 60 demes and 720 phratries ; and as the year consists of 360 days it will result that 2 of 
the 720 phratries will... each day...’ 

1. tva py] may be supplied before dyrodéow, 

4. There is a break below this line, and the extent of the gap, if any, is not ascertain- 
able. It is not even certain that ll. 1-4 belong to the same column as ll. 5 sqq. 

5. tas pparplals (cf. ll. 14 and 17) is very insecure. azp may be arr or att, and the 
letters preceding and following are rather cramped. The phratry as a subdivision of the 
Graeco-Egyptian tribe is a novelty, and it must have been relatively unimportant. There is 
no mention of phratries in the description in P. Tebt. II. 316 of the formalities attending the 
incorporation of ephebi in the demes. ‘The occurrence of the form ¢parpa (cf. Homer and 
Herodotus pyrpy), which is also found in Dion. Hal. A. 2. 2. 7, 4. 12, is interesting; in 
]. 23 the Attic ¢parpia is used. 

8-9. Another break occurs between these two lines, but the edges of the papyrus join 
satisfactorily, and the connexion of ovvécrwcay with dpatpar dvo suits the sense. The 
doubtful « may be p, and ro/d| pely éujavrod is a possible reading; but avrov is somewhat 
long for the lacuna in 1. 9, and pev is not wanted. 

16. The letters at the beginning of the line are blotted and seem to have been inten- 
tionally deleted. 

20-1. The statement that the year consisted of 360 days is curious. The Macedonian 
year, like other Greek years, probably contained 354 days apart from intercalations, and 
there is some evidence that half the months contained only 29 days; cf. p. 334. Perhaps, 
however, an average of 30 days was reckoned here for the sake of symmetry. The length 
of the Egyptian annus vagus was 365 days, and if that be the year meant, the 5 intercalary 
days were left out of account. Possibly on each of them there was a general festival of 
a whole tribe. As Smyly remarks, the organization revealed by the papyrus seems to rest 
on an astronomical basis. 

Frs. (Z) and (e). These two small fragments are each from the top of a column. 

40-3. There is a space after ow in ], 43, which suggests that this fragment contains 
the ends of lines. The letter before ow has been corrected and deleted, and there is an 
ink spot above it which may belong to an over-written letter. Line 40 was possibly the first 
of a column. 


29. FiInaNce Laws. 

Mummy 97. 12:6 X 23cm. About B.c. 265. 

Both sides of this papyrus are inscribed with royal ordinances, but they are 
too fragmentary to be of very much value. The subject of the recto, which 
is fairly preserved so far as it goes, is the farming of a tax upon slaves; these 
were to be registered by their owners at the offices of the agoranomi, and 
penalties are provided for any attempt at evasion or concealment. Of a general 
slave-tax at this period nothing is at present known; P. Petrie II. 39 (4) and (c), 
to which Wilcken refers (Ost. I. p. 304), are shown by the republication 
of them in III. 107 (a) and (4) to have no bearing upon the question. It is notice- 
able that the word here used for slave is not dodA0s or céya but avdpdrodov, which 
strictly signifies a captive or enslaved prisoner. . Perhaps this ordinance was called 
forth by some considerable increase in that class asa result of one of the wars 
of Philadelphus,—to whose reign rather than that of Euergetes the papyrus 
is to be assigned. The prisoners (aixudadAwrot) brought from Asia by the latter 
monarch are expressly alluded to in P. Petrie III. 104. 2; cf. II. 29 (ce). 2. The 
papyrus apparently indicates that the captives were disposed of by the govern- 
ment to private persons, who, besides no doubt having to pay for such 
appropriation, were subject to a special tax. 

The verso is in a much worse case. It is unfortunately divided between two 
columns, and the amount lost at the beginnings and ends of the lines cannot be 
precisely fixed. In the text given below the numbers of letters assigned to the 
lacunae are based upon Il. 22-3 and 36-7. But these numbers are chiefly designed 
to show the relation of the lines to each other, and the loss may easily be greater 
than we have supposed. In parts of Col. i restoration seems very difficult with 
a gap at the beginning of only about a dozen letters. The hand is smaller and 
more cursive than that of the recto, but the writer may well have been the same 
person; he was not over-accurate, and several corrections occur. The subject 
is again tax-farming, but to the nature of the tax there is no clear clue. There 
is a question of registration (1. 17), but that by itself is of course insufficient to 
establish a definite connexion with the recto. The most significant word is 
xtjpa (1. 20), which is often used technically of a vineyard (cf. e. g. 118. 20), and 
suggests a possible reference to the dmépopa (cf. 109 introd.); but there is 
nothing in the context to confirm this. 

The papyrus probably dates from about the middle of the reign of 
Philadelphus; cf. 64 and 92, which came from the same mummy. 


Fr. (a), Recto. 

TEP IC Tas (ore GAT ROT OV OC AK een |iuetlel stich oa tel | 76 avd p|dmodov Kai (d:\rdod[v 

TIVET A). €UU OF TLS HANG « lieve eicle renee ]. ul... .].¥ 9 ph amroypadWnrale 
Ova TaY 

ayopavopioy [7 T]a TéAn [dtadvyov tw Katapavqe emi BAdBnL] Tod 
péaOw rob a{vdlparddiou, edv de av\riAéyne KpOjtrwcaly €jn[t] Tod almode- 
5 Oevypévou k[pt|rnpiov, Tax [de unlvbcavre éot@ TO Tpitov plépos] mpabE|vtos 
Tod avdpambdov: éav dé 6 bnfore]Oels pnvione ededOepos Ectw KataBadr[ov 
TQ yl- 
voueva TEN. ypapécbwcar [dle kal ravras Tas brobéces 6 TE ypapplateds 
Tov avdpalmrddjov Kai 6 avttypadeds Kal 6 TEA@Y]ns, 6 OE TEA@YNS TOlDTO TO 
ypappatietov] ypdyas eis AevKopa plelyddos ypdupaow exrTiOét\@ mpd 
10 TO} dyopar{opl|ou éxdorns WHlepas, pe O av Huleplar 7 ExOf[eors wry yivntae 

[drrorivéTw (paypas) . €witiloW, mpooamotivée[tw O€ Kali... 1... eee 
Fr. (0). Fr. (c). 
12 jAopel in . of 
ews | 15 jaz] 
Fr. (a), Verso. Col. i. 
. Ixamierencreme oR? 
tsa state Meme et ‘e@[ 16 letters |s €Adooovos amoypawac- 
ORS eeenreadonnaers lama[. .Ja[.]...[.. .ov[... .Jovra: ev Huépats 18 
bo titan Alcor | Suxiplaloral mapevpéoler r\rwroby [|rapevperer nitwiovr]| 
BOA Petencueserisestiea ote |. TeX. - THS Gpxis of. .Jy orTepéecOw Tod KTipaTos 
[Bacasmcsercmexcecieees \xoo|.| |. Tyntas. Kyhpukas O€ Kai b7rn[plérals 
Kabic7Tm 6 Tée[A@\vns 
(easarsbeicae cet fre |... dav darnpler\ie  bmnperqje pi Kata ta [mpolo- 

[reraypéva amolre(ce (Spaxpas) p mpookaTaBdddew O€ TavTaol... .| 


sees. Ooxilpactixay évds tovrov t[o]d rédous FOUN (at tos) 

Benes a se - 6 Te Ad@yns Tat Bacihel mpaccé[r]w éf ob dv 7. eos 
on 6 eae Tov pépos pnbéva brdd{o}yov Troovpev[ols, [€av dé 
lo OCS SC eae meee nee -.| 6 dytiypageds tdi reddvne ph ef Ect 
eee ewoyel o: <\-6-0)< Kall dxupos abtéu éo[tT]o 4 otyragis, éaly O&.. 
|: See eee Th PEC TOVGMPOLNU alee lee) 5. os Inoioss & 

19. Ibs Soxtpactai. 21. Knpuxas... umn plera's added above the line. 
Col. ii. 

30 mpeTat 7. T.. TE 
@oTakT.| . . .Joravar 

6 0& dvrtypagleds klai 6) zleAduns 17 letters ypa- 

gl] <]rocav kal THe bo[rlepaiar mld] 7[0d dyopavoutov éxriOérwoay ? 
Ka pépavy [olbuBororv dimdodv oppalyioduevol......... 

35 77'.| (Spaxu..?) t, édyv d& pH OUVTPPAY(COVTAIL . ss Sides bw Kata 
Ta yeypappéva elorplalyOjntw éxd|repos abrov (dpaxpas). kal é€- 
[olvoia Eorw 7Ht TeASyyL avremreiy [ 17 letters d- 
vadepéto dé Kal Ta edoyevpéva [ jie ee 
K.. ot emt tiv Baoitk jy 7\pdrefar -{ 18 letters 

40 ¢f..].. [. Blaowdixns [rpamégn]s dOyou 7, ' 

[--++.++.J]@ els 7d Aoyioripiov ypddov [roca te On TémTOKEV 

emi tiv (tpd\me(av Kal ri ddelAerat av.[ 18 letters 

Hea(S) a x, BAG) cere Pri@). 

TOL TIérE [ ] |rae xk 
]Hevou[ 46 Jao Jue 
45  — Joae rol 
32. l. ypalpdvrey ? 36. x Of ecomp[a]yOnrw added above the line. 

I-11. ‘...and when... the slave, he shall forfeit double. If any one (alienate ?) or 
fail to register (a slave) through the agoranomus-offices or be discovered evading the taxes 
to the detriment of the tax-farmer, he shall be deprived of the slave. If he dispute the 
decision they. shall be tried before the appointed tribunal, and the third part of the value of 

M 2 


the slave when sold shall go to the informer. If the slave (assigned?) give information, 
he shall be free on payment of the usual taxes. The scribe of the slaves and the anti- 
grapheus and the tax-farmer shall write out these assignments (?), and the tax-farmer shall 
write this document upon a notice board in large letters and expose it in front of the 
agoranomus-office every day, and for every day that this exposure does not take place 
he shall pay a fine of . . drachmae, and shall further pay...’ 

1. Probably xaéd|rep, and perhaps ry . . Any after wai, The A may be y, but there is 
not room for ryznv. réAn cannot be read. 

2. If adda .{ is a verb, it can only be some part of ddAdooew, and ddddgénrac gives an 
appropriate sense; but the é is not very satisfactory. A more definite expression than 
@Ada (soujon) is, however, expected; ddday{7 is not impossible. The problem of the 
supplement is complicated by the doubt whether Fr. (c) should not be assigned to ll. 1-2. 
If so, Jaz{ must be inserted about midway between adda.| and |.v[. This position is 
suggested by the verso, which contains the last two letters of a line and might be placed 
at the end of |. 28, and, adopting that arrangement, we might read dAAd§ nrjai 7{. . .| . o{zr0- 
reO\év (riodro 7\d tin. is rather long); cf. the next note. 

6. un|...].es must be an aorist participle passive, and the faint trace before es would 
suit’@ or perhaps ¢. inlore Beis is suggested by trodéces in the next line; but the technical 
meaning of those words here is uncertain. For éror:@éva in the sense of ‘make subject to’ 
cf. Plato, Polit. p. 308 A dp’ ody broyepious trois €xOpois imeBecav tas adtey marpidas ; 

7. The rédn are the taxes on emancipation rather than those which the owner was 
attempting to escape, and for which he would naturally remain responsible. For the taxes 
on emancipation in the Roman period cf. P. Oxy. 722. 19, note. 

16-21. The first letters of these lines, lea[, Jamal, |Scccp{, . eredl and |xos[, are on a 
detached fragment, the position of which is not certain. The recto is blank, as it should 
be if placed here; but the necessity of supposing a misspelling in dc«:p/alorai is not quite 
satisfactory, though |Scxu{ is difficult to interpret in any case. A suitable reading of 1. 20 
is also not easy to obtain; the third letter is more like r than &, but | 6€ réAee is as little 
convincing as dé e€éAm. For the Soxpacrns and doxipacrixdy (1. 24) cf 106, introd. and 
110. 31, note, 

22. knptoone seems intended to replace émnpler x, but that word was apparently not 
deleted in any way; cf. ll. 32-4, note. If imnpler|@v were read, as is just possible, knpioone 
would then have to be inserted before it; but this is an awkward collocation, and the final 
letter of ixnpier| .. is hardly high enough for a »v. 

23. The infinitive spooxaraBadXew is unexpected and is perhaps an error for zpooxataSakei. 

24. €vos rovrov can hardly be right ; oo might be read for the first ro. 

26. tddlolyov in this phrase is a masculine substantive ; cf. 85. 24, note. 

28. Perhaps éaly dé rlas; cf. notes on Il. 2 and 46. 

30. Perhaps in|npéra, though this division is unusual. 

31. The top of a letter after « suits 7 better than a; possibly xrn{parja (cf. 1. 20). 

32-4. Cf. ll. 8-10. The scribe apparently intended to alter (?)ypa|pérwoar to ypapédrrar, 
but he neglected to delete oa; cf. note on |. 22. 

37 sqq. The general sense clearly is that the tax-farmer was to produce the amount 
he had collected, while the banker was to make a statement of accounts. 6 tpamegirns is 
probably to be supplied at the end of I. 39, but é« rod ris is too long for the lacuna at the 

beginning of 1. 4o. h 
46. These two letters should perhaps be placed at the end of |. 28; cf. note on 1. 2. 
47-8. The recto of this fragment is blank. 



30. JupiciaL Summons. 
Mummy 6. Fr. (¢) 9:4 X 10-6 cm. B.C. 300-271. 

This papyrus affords a specimen of a formal summons (éyxAnya) served by 
a plaintiff in a civil process upon his adversary. A longer but less well preserved 
example has lately been published in P. Petrie III. 21 (g). 12-35, where 
the same characteristic formulae appear; and the two documents well illustrate 
the procedure of the time in the preliminary stages of an action at law. 

The papyrus is in four fragments which refer to more than one suit. The 
summons contained on Fr. (d) is complete in itself, and lacks only a few letters 
at the beginnings of the lines. The three smaller pieces are however certainly 
in the same hand, and probably came from the upper part of the same sheet. 
The document is therefore a copy of the original summonses actually presented, 
though the claimant, whose name is lost, may have been the same person in 
both cases. Both were actions for recovery of a debt, and in both the plaintiff 
and defendant belonged to the same military troop. In Fr. (a) the debt was 
330 drachmae, in (d), the more complete specimen, principal and_ interest 
amounted to 1050 drachmae. A declaration is first given of the fact of the 
debt, and that applications for payment had been fruitless; then comes a formal 
announcement of the institution of judicial proceedings (616 édixa¢ouai oo, cf. 
P. Petrie, zdzd., 1. 27), and a statement of the sums involved, followed by the 
names of the witnesses to the summons (kAjjropes), who are two in number 
according to the usual Attic practice. At the end is the date and a notification 
concerning the court at which proceedings were to be instituted. Precisely the 
same scheme, except that the witnesses are placed last, is followed in the Petrie 
papyrus, where the point at issue was not a debt, but, apparently, an assault. 
The constitution of the court was in that instance a board of nine dicasts under 
a president, and may have been the same here. The papyrus is written in 
a small neat hand of a decidedly early type. The fact that the gods Adelphi 
were not yet associated with Alexander shows that the year is prior to the 15th 
of Philadelphus (cf. 99, introd., and p. 368); and the reign may even have been 
that of Soter. 

Fr. (a). ].- 
| Makjcday trav 'Adeg dvdpov 


Nitkdévopt Max{edovt 
tov ‘Adrje~dvdpou yididpxole 
5 rt opel\\wv (6paypas) TA Kalta ovyypagiy 

e ° 

Fr. (3). : A 5 ° Fre (és .-) =) 
]--[- Jol - eens 
]ro emi. . |]. Tpev 
Jederd. |v 
ligov opo 
] Vc sy pous 
fo ] . ov 

[. cee e cee ee ee TOY ArelEdvdpoiv] Sexa- 
[vixos ILe]pdixxat Maxedd[v) rév ‘AdeEdvdp{olv. 
15 [OnA@ cole drt oelAwy por Kata ovvypadiy 
[(Spaypas).. aly €yyvds éorw “Avriyovos Alpvaiov 
[ravras| dmattovpevos bd pov modAdKIs OUK a- 
[modidlwrs ovre Tat mpadKTopr nBovdrAov e£opo- 
[AoyjolacOat, 516 Sikdgopatl cot rod apyaiou 
20 [kal toxolv (dpaxpov) ‘Av. riunua ths dixns (Spaxpai) Av. 
[kAjropes .|kaduowos Kéauos tev ‘AdeEdvdpou idto- 
[tTns .... .JAaos Mévwvos Oparg ris emcyorijs. 


Erous .. ep lelpéws Pidicxov tod Yrovdaiov pvos 

[.. ee... lou 0. 9 Oikn cor dvaypagycer[al ev 
frau « ev ‘Hp'axXéous move Sikactnpfot [€lvemov 

ve ecesee ElKTAM. (2nd hand) 6: ’ Emipévovs. 

13 sqq. ‘...decurion of the troop of Alexander to Perdiccas, Macedonian of the 
troop of Alexander. I give you notice that you owe me by a contract .. drachmae, for 
which Antigonus son of Limnaeus is surety, and that notwithstanding frequent demands 
from me you do not repay this sum nor were willing to acknowledge the debt to the 
collector; I therefore am taking legal proceedings against you for principal and interest 
amounting to 1050 drachmae ; the assessment of damages is 1050 drachmae. Witnesses 


of the summons: [.|caphusius, Coan, private of the troop of Alexander, and ...laus son 
of Menon, Thracian of the Epigone. 

‘The .. th year, in the priesthood of Philiscus son of Spoudaeus, the 14th of the 
month... The case will be drawn up against you in the court at Heracleopolis in 
the presence of... (Signed) Through Epimenes.’ 

1. There are traces of ink near the edge of the papyrus; but the document really 
begins with 1. 2. 

5» Kalra ovyypapny: cf. 1.15. Smyly is, we think, wrong in interpreting xara cvyypapiy 
spodoyias in P, Petrie III. 21 (a)-(/) as an agreement of the parties ratified by the court 
(p. 43). xara ovyypapny there, as here, probably refers to the contract out of which the case 
arose. There is nothing to show that 21 (4) concerns an action for assault ; aceras (?) in 
]. 11, if per/é xvp|iov is right, must be a feminine proper name. 

13. dexalvixds: cf. 86. 21, &c. This military title has not previously been found 
written out in full, though it can now be recognized in P. Petrie III. 54 a. (4) § and 114. 1, 
where |. de(kavixds), Sexavoi pudaxirdy occur in the second century in P. Tebt. 27. 31, and 
a dexavds in P. Tebt. 251. Other military titles mentioned in this volume in connexion with 
the Greek settlers are Noxayés (81. 7, 15), Adpxns (105. 3), nyewov (44. 2), all of which are 
familiar from the Petrie papyri, tdarns (80. 21, 89. 7, &c.), which is not used elsewhere in 
papyri to denote a military rank, and a new (?) title of which the plural ends in |Jovro 
(96. 13). ray (in 110. 72 rév mpHrwv), followed by the name of the captain of the particular 
troop, is added in many instances, sometimes preceding the word denoting rank, sometimes 
following it, as is more usually the case in the Petrie papyri. The absence of the title 
khnpovdxos in the Heracleopolite and Oxyrhynchite papyri from Hibeh (the xAnpodyo in 82, 
16 were in the Fayum), and the comparative rarity of the titles éxaTovrdpoupos, oydSonkov- 
tdpovpos, &c., afford another point of contrast with the Petrie papyri.  idarns serves to 
distinguish the lowest rank of military settlers from that of ‘ decurion ’ (Sexavxds) and of 
higher officers such as the Aoyayés, iAdpxns, and ytAlapxos. This use of the term anticipates 
our technical military sense of ‘ private’; cf. Xen. Anad. i. 3. 11, where idv@rns is contrasted 
with orpatnyds. erovpyds in 96. 14 and 31 probably*has no military signification; cf. 
note ad loc. 

15. The title of Perdiccas, e.g. [iStmrn't, may have stood in the lacuna, but the syntax is 
improved by supplying some verb like én\o. 

19-20. dpxaiov [kai rékolv: cf. 92. 15-16. The riznua demanded seems to be additional 
to the sum due on account of the actual loan, and represents the penalty which was no 
doubt provided by the contract in case of non-payment. To suppose that this penalty was 
equal to the amount of the debt accords with other evidence for this early period; cf. 84(a), . 
g and note on 88. 13. 

21. (eAnropes|: cf. P. Petrie III. 21 (2 e's 

22. The space below this line is slightly wider than elsewhere, but there was probably 
nothing between emyovns and the date. 

24-5. The publication of the details of the charge at the court before which it came 
was part of the normal procedure at Athens. For [élpomov cf. P. Petrie IIL. 21 (Ne Be 
where évema (or évomov ?) is to be read. 

26. é|kmdo: cf. P. Petrie III. 21 (e). 5, Where, however, the reference is equally 



Mummy 5. Breadth 17-7 cm. About B.c. 270. 

The contents of this papyrus are a short summary of the details of a judicial 
suit, but owing to lacunae and the involved construction the situation is not easy 
to grasp. The text, according to a common custom at this period (cf. 86, &c.), 
is given in duplicate, and nothing is lost above 1. 1 or below 1. 23; but there 
is a gap in the middle, and unfortunately the commencement is defective in 
both copies. Thrason and Pasis, the parties in the case, seem each to have 
accused the other of having lost 7 jars of wine from a store-place which had 
been leased by the owner Pasis. Affidavits were entered on both sides, and 
evidence was given that the store had been opened. The nature of the judgement, 
if indeed a judgement is recorded by the papyrus at all, depends upon the view 
taken of a mutilated passage, but there is reason to think that Pasis was 
condemned to pay compensation to Thrason to the extent of 56 drachmae ; 
cf. note on ll. 6-7. 

The papyrus is written in a rather large clear cursive, and is unlikely to be 
later than the first half of the reign of Philadelphus. The mummy from which 
it came produced also 84 (a) and 97, the earliest dated documents in this volume. 

Fr. (a). 
[ 2 letters | Opdolore mpd. 
[ 22s |. ov adrav |.. 
OLAKOU| Cis tose ea) e1 ).... oluévov Opdowrios 

Tov opkolv| Kat II\doujtos dévros avopdonp\ov 
5 Opdiclw|v\(a) amodwdeKevas Ex TOD Tapte[lou 
olvov Kepadpia ¢ a@jmodotvat........ 
aww Tov émta KEepapll@oy Tipiy as ef) n (dpaxpar), 
/ (Spaxpai) vg, & evexddreoev alroAw)Aeker[at 
b ~ 4 ec b * ~ r 
€k TOO Taplefov ov e€epiicO\woev laos (mpoo- 
10 pwlalptupjoavtos Avovvaiov ‘AokdAnmidd[ov 
(Nijx(dpyjov dAdov ‘AokAnmiddov yeyevjcOat 

[THY Eerdvogwv| Tod Ta\ulclellolv. 

Fr. (4). 


Tens es 
pévov Opdowvos ‘tov bpxov Kai IIdautos 
15 OdvTos avoudi\onpov Opdowva amrodhwdeKe- 
vat ek To Talpueiov oivov) K\epdpia ¢ 
G[mojdot[var...jow[...... le Tay éenra 
kepapiov tiunly os e€| n (Spaxpav), 7 (dpaxpai) vs, 
a d 7 3 , b] ~ 
a& évexddecev amroAw@AEKEval EK TOU TaA- 
4 Len BI 4 ~ 
20 puelov ov e€euicOwoey IIdois mpocpap- 
tupnoavtos AckAnmiddov Nixépxou 
dddXov ‘AckArnmiddov yeyevncba tiv 

’ , ~ , 
emadvolgiy Tov Tapeiov. 

Fr. (c). ® e . e 
a rex piva{to 
25 Joun| 
5. 1. dmodw\exevat. g. a Of maors corr. from «. 12. ec Of rapcecou added above 
the line. 
ll. 2-12. ‘... having heard (?)..., after Thrason had made an oath, and after Pasis 

had given a contradictory declaration that Thrason had lost from the store-place 7 jars 
of wine, gave judgement that Pasis should pay to Thrason(?) the price of the 7 jars 
at the rate of 8 drachmae per jar, making 56 drachmae, which jars he accused Pasis 
of having lost from the store-place leased by Pasis, further testimony that the store had 
been opened having been given by Dionysius, Asclepiades, Nicarchus, and another 

1-2. ? mpols | Maow. 

4. Sdvros dvopoonplov: SC. épxov, avopoonpos 1S a New Compound. 

6-7. For a{rodotvac cf. 1, 17, where d{zo So0ijyar seems almost inevitable. If anodotva 
be granted, it must depend on a finite verb which we think is to be found in a}expiva{ro in 
Fr. (c). The first question is where this fragment is to be placed. It does not suit the 
end of |. 6, for it would quite fill up the line, and owe in 1, 7 would be left suspended ; 
moreover a discrepancy would result in 1], 17 where the o before w/ is quite certain. Fr. 
(c) therefore belongs to the beginning of the document, and may be placed either in Il. 1-3 
or in the corresponding place of the second copy. It remains to find a suitable restoration 
of the words between amoSovva: and rév, upon which the interpretation of the document 
largely depends. ow at the beginning of |. 7, if right, can hardly be anything but 
a place-name; in |. 17, however, the letter before rwv is not » but almost certainly «. This 
might no doubt be explained as an iota adscript which in |. 7 was omitted; but in view 
of the other inaccuracies on the part of this scribe we are disposed to expect a more 


serious error, and suggest that owe is a slip of the pen for cw, i.e. Opava, jouw in I. 17 
will then of course be Ha ow and Haow Opdowr just fits the length of the lacunae in both 
copies. If this rather bold solution is correct, a|rexpivalro (or -vavto?) drododva will be the 
verdict and not a statement by one of the parties, a view which is supported by d:axov/cas (?) 
in |. 3. 

8. If the interpretation proposed in the previous note be on the right lines, the 
subject of évexddeoev should be Thrason; for it would be hardly reasonable to make Pasis 
pay Thrason if Pasis had himself incurred the loss. The rate here fixed, 8 drachmae for 
a xepdjuov, is just equivalent to the highest price found for a kepdptoy in the Tebtunis papyri 
(4000 dr., P. Tebt. 253) if the ratio of the values of silver and copper drachmae be taken 
as 1: 500. But prices of xepdyia are deceptive; cf P. Tebt. 113. 36, note. 

10, Acovvgiov is omitted in the second copy, |. 21. 


Mummy A 14. 34°5X 12cm. B.C. 246 (245). 

The purport of this document, which concerns the sequestration of sheep 
belonging to a military settler, is somewhat obscure owing to the mutilation 
of the chief verb in 1. 4. If our interpretation is correct, the papyrus records the 
sequestration by Heraclitus, an Alexandrian citizen, of 38 sheep, the property 
of Neoptolemus, a Macedonian settler, who had been condemned by default to 
pay a fine for an act of #8pis committed against Heraclitus. The relation of the 
last four lines, which are dated a week later, to the main text is uncertain. 
The writing is a large, handsome cursive; the second year no doubt refers 
to Euergetes. 

("Erous) B Aiov xe, dia Tre- 
pdyov. ‘Hpdkderos ‘Hp[akrei- 
tov Kaorépetos tov ovTrm 
[elrnypévov traped|éEato ? 

§ wumapxovta Neomrod€Euov 
Makedévos iSi(@\rov 7iav 
Avridxou mpos Karadi 
Knv epnpov UBpews 
mpos (Spaxpas) o Kal Tov emide- 

10 Katou (Spaxpas) k mpoBata Xn, 
Ll Epolevies n, apves ty, 
trodipbepa nuikoupla t¢ 


av AevKdpatoy Widdv Ev, 
(Aijyémria jpixoupa y, 

15 Wha vida t, Aptkovpov 
ev, Alyinria wile B / (An. 
‘AredAalou B, eEwpd[oa- 
to Méummos Meveudyou 
Musas ths emcyovas -. 

20 Pamevos avT...... 

On the verso 

‘The 2nd year, Dius 25, through Telemachus. Heraclitus son of Heraclitus, of the 
CaStorian deme but not yet enrolled, has taken over (?) property of Neoptolemus, Mace- 
donian, a private in Antiochus’ troop, who had been condemned by default for violence 
to a fine of 200 drachmae and the extra tenth, 20 drachmae, namely 38 sheep, of which 
8 are rams, 13 lambs, 17 covered with skins and half-shorn, of which (17) 1 is whitish 
grey and shorn, 3 are of Egyptian breed and half-shorn, ro are shorn and half-bred, 1 is 
half-shorn, 2 are of Egyptian breed and shorn, total 38. Apellaeus 2. Menippus son 
of Menemachus, Mysian of the Epigone, excused himself on oath (?), saying that he...’ 
(Title) Pledge.’ 

I. Afov xe; this day probably corresponded to some date in Choiak at this period ; 
cf. App. i. 

3. Kaordpetos x.r.A.: the formula in the Petrie papyri is fuller, e.g. III. 11. 27 ’Adegav- 
Spevs THs emvyorns Tov ova ernypeveor eis Onpov Kaotopeoy. 

4. If maped|é£aro is right, there is hardly room for rd after it. 

g. emdexdrov: this is a clear instance of the use of that term, which occurs also in 
92. 19, for an ‘extra tenth,’ not ‘1,5.’ Probably there is a connexion between these 
emdéxata and the émdéxarov which, according to an ordinance of (probably) Philadelphus 
preserved in P. Amh. 33. 28-37, was to be levied twice over from advocates who had 
pleaded in mpocodtxai xpices to the detriment of the State revenues. The fine there levied 
upon the advocates would seem to be twice the émdéxarov levied upon their clients. But 
the interpretation of the émdexarov in P. Amh. 33 is still very obscure. 

12. trodipOepa: cf. P. Petrie III. 109 (4). 12 and the editor’s note. 

14. [Allyinrta: cf. 86. 6 ApaSiov. vdéa in 1, 15 probably means a mixture of the two 

Wife eLopd|ca\lro : or, possibly, e€ouo|Aoynoa||ro: cf. 80. 18. 

19. Probably nothing is lost after emcyovns. 




Mummy A. 11-6 x 8-2 cm. B.C. 245 (244). 

An dmoypagy of sheep, drawn up by a military settler; cf. P. Petrie III. 
72 (b), Like the property-return in P. Petrie II. p. 33, 33 omits any mention 
of the official addressed, and the formula begins with dazoypagy instead of 
anoypapopat. P. Petrie III. 72 (4) is addressed in duplicate to the oeconomus 
and topogrammateus, and 88 is also apparently in duplicate; but it is unlikely 
that the two copies were intended for different officials, since the practice of 
writing documents twice over on the same papyrus is common at this period, 
e. g. 36-7. 

The papyrus was written in a cursive hand ; the second year might refer to 
Philadelphus’ reign, though more probably that of Euergetes is meant. 

["Erous 8B Ilapevar.|  amo- 

[ypagy Aelas..|.T. 4 

[... els 7d tpiroy) &- 

ros male [Alplo\un|drou 
5 Opaikis ididérov Tév ‘Ae- 

Tob. wmdpxet por mpoPla- 

ra idta ev Kopne Pe- 

mOoveuByn Tod Koeiz[o\v 

’ , 

10 (érovs) B Ilapevor. cmoypa- 
pry Aelas els 7d Tpit ov E- 
tos map ‘Apoindrov Opa- 
Kos iditov tTav Aerod. 
imdpxer por \rpoBara ida 

15 [ely (kopun | Perboveu By 

‘rod Koeirov oydonKor|ra. 

6. v of -rov corr. from »v. 


‘The 2nd year, Phamenoth. Return of a flock (?) for the third year from Aroimeotes, 
Thracian, a private of Aetus’ troop. I own eighty sheep as my private property at the 
village of Psepthonembe in the Koite district.’ 

2. The sense of Aelia here is obscure. For the word at this period in reference to 
sheep cf. P. Petrie III. 111. 8 pvdaxirixdv Aeias wpoBdrwy, and 112 (a). 11, &c., where the gvaA. 
Aecas is contrasted with the qvaA. iepetwry, i.e. animals destined for sacrifice. In those 
instances, as here, the Ae‘a of sheep occurs in connexion with military settlers, and it would 
be possible to suppose that they had received from the state a grant of sheep either taken 
as plunder or in lieu of plunder. But Aeia occurs in Frs. (1), (3), and (6) of Rev. Laws in 
connexion with the évydywor, or tax for the use of the royal pastures (cf. 52, introd.); and it 
seems probable that in reference to sheep the word had lost the connotation of plunder, 
though it is noticeable that Aea has its ordinary sense in 62. 4, and P. Petrie III. 28 (e). 
verso 3, and (apparently, though the context is not quite clear) 64 (¢). 11-2. 

The vestiges at the end of the line do not suit any part of mpo8darwy, and the word, 
whatever it was, did not recur in 1, 11. Perhaps there was a dittography or some other 


Mummies 69 and 7o. Breadth 32cm. B.C. 243-2. 

A petition to Ptolemy (Euergetes) from Antigonus, probably a phylacites, 
complaining that Patron, the archiphylacites of the lower toparchy of the 
Oxyrhynchite nome, had prevented him from carrying out his duties, and asking 
for redress. 73 is a letter from Antigonus on the same subject to Dorion, the 
epistates. Both documents are mutilated ; but they supplement each other, and 
the sequence of events is clear. Callidromus, a Cyrenean settler, had obtained 
unlawful possession of a donkey belonging to a certain Dorion, and Antigonus 
has been directed by Dorion the epistates to compel Callidromus either to restore 
the animal to its owner or to pay its value. Antigonus accordingly arrested 
Callidromus and lodged him in a prison at the village of Sinaru. Patron then 
intervened, and not only released Callidromus from prison but himself took 
possession of the donkey (73. 13-4). 

The most interesting feature of these two documents is their illustration of 
the practice of personal execution, and their references to the edict (ddypappya) 
authorizing it. According to Diod. Sic. i. 79, execution on the person of a debtor 
was abolished in Egypt by Bocchoris in the eighth century; but it was re- 
introduced under the Ptolemies and, as we now know, quite early in their regime ; 
cf. P. Petrie II. 21 (@). 15. Wenger's inference from P. Amh. 43. 12 sqq. 
(B.C. 173), ) mpagis €otw ... Tpaooovrt Kata TO didypappa Kal Tovs vdpovs, that the 
date of the é.dypapya was probably not far removed from that of the Amherst 


papyrus (Archiv, II. 53), thus proves to be mistaken. Personal execution being 
a common institution in the Greek world (Mitteis, Reéchsrecht u. Volksrecht, 
p. 446), its reappearance in Egypt is likely enough to have followed close upon 
the establishment of the Ptolemaic dynasty. 

The papyrus is a good deal broken, and the ink in the lower lines of the 
first fragment is very faint and blurred. The frequent corrections show that this 
document, like 78, is only a rough draft. The writing (which is across the fibres) 
gradually becomes more cursive as it proceeds. 

Frs. (a) and (0). 
t [Baowret TI rode|uaior yxaipew. “Avriyovos adixodpat brs ladrpwvos tod 
[pvdra|kire[vlovros Tv KdTw Tomapxlay. E“od yap admaya- 
t[o]p 5 (€rous) unvds 
2 [yévros Kaddidpo|uov Kaddtkpdrovs Kupnvatov tis émeyovns «[is To] ev 
Meyip Ke 
Siwd[piy decpwrnpiov Kata mpdctaypa Awpiwvos Tod émo- 

Bia [aa OU eo hetlenewanss ] & at éyéypamto éemavaykdoa toy KadXiSpopoyv 4 76 
Uimlogvyloly dmodobvat tai Kupiot 7) Tipjy Tod bvov (Spaxpas) kK 
Geil oem heehee Tldérpwv) ovéva rbyov moinodpevos t[d]y re Kadd{i]Spopov 
e[éjyayey €K Tod ély Sivdplv] Secpor|n|piov dore.. |. .].. 
GNNQ) GOcKOMIBLAVIE e iatecleisie sie cheers ouiiipane oo aloo bolo000c 
se aero oe Seve suaege Kadl]A{t\dpéuov .[....Jpa.Ac.!...7..[..].[ 20 letters | 
. énavayraca TO UmolUyiov . ww ee ee t 
- VOL YMEVOIOY TOUT... To. Ts Yi... s.- 
6 vou Kat 70 diam... .... a. [.\mOT0 « x, » [> «(7 MPOCrvenmels 
[-Jorf- Jeo). - J. LS +f 


7 mpootadgat yp\dyar Bevoxpdrn Tat mpdktopt Tov iSiwtik@y ered? II dtpev 
Tapa Ta diaypa|upara 

8 eéjyaye roly avOpwrov ex rod Seopornpiov iva ph 4 mpagis [| yevn One 
ek Tov ceparos]| mpagat al[vrov 
| viv adrodovva iva pr 
9 Weeos St ocodecas | rodro 7d adpytptoy tip\{mr|Aody Kara 7d 
Oidypappa [ladda dia. . [ 
10 le €@ [lavev]] dvev jyav tov Idrpeva 

eLaynyoxéra Tov |avOpwrov 


It TO ap\ytptov Kata 76 didypappa iva [da 
ge Bacirev]] dia oe Baird Tod Olixaiov THX. 
12 | ypdéypavtos adAAnv emiaroAny Tob 8 
(Erovs) Pappod&i 1B en 
traces of I line. 

Fr. (c). - : : Fr.({d). - 
14 |. Gt €mavayKao, 17 Jat av, 
|rov Kat 7) ja paddvia éav . [ 
|. py Kopioal ] Tpomoy ndvydpnv Ta Tou, 

Bis (e)s 2 : s 
20 }- yl 

10. First a of e£aynyoxora corr. from ». 

ll. 1-4. ‘To King Ptolemy, greeting. I, Antigonus, am unjustly treated by Patron 
the phylacites of the lower toparchy. For when I had removed Callidromus son of 
Callicrates, a Cyrenean of the Epigone, in Mecheir 25 of the 4th year to the prison at 
Sinaru in accordance with an order of Dorion the epistates, wherein it was written that 
I should either compel Callidromus to restore the donkey to its owner or else its value, 
zo drachmae, Patron paying no heed to this released Callidromus from the prison at 

I. xalpew, "Avtiyovos x.r.’.: we prefer this method of punctuation, which has been 
adopted by the editors of the Magdola papyri, to that still supported by Wilcken (Archiv, 
III. p. 308) according to which the full stop is placed after the name of the petitioner. 
The formula gains nothing in respectfulness by the mere transposition of yaipew and the 
name, but it does distinctly so gain if the name is kept out of the salutation altogether. 
Cf. 35. 1-2, where the punctuation after xaipew is indicated by the division of the lines, and 
the new Magdola papyrus in Afélanges Nicole, pp. 281 sqq., with the editors’ note. 

[puda|kire[vlovros: in 78. 10 Patron is called the dpyipvdaxitns of the lower toparchy. 
At this period therefore the dpyepvdAaxirns might be much more than a mere village official, 
which he sometimes certainly was in the second century B.c.; cf. P. Tebt. 43.9. He was, 
however, subordinate to the émordrns (pudaxirHv), as 73. 19 shows. If apxi|udaxirns is to 
be restored in P. Petrie III. 130 émorarys pvdaxirdv kai dpxi{, the two offices were some- 
times combined in one person. The note on P. Tebt. 5. 159 requires modification in the 
light of the new evidence. 


2. Swi[p|v: the reference to Taxdéva in 73. 14 as well as to the lower toparchy (cf. e.g. 
52. 4) proves that this is the Oxyrhynchite Sinaru (P. Oxy. 373, &c.) rather than the 
Heracleopolite (p. 8). 

4. &&jyayev is supplied from |. ro and 73. 11. If éoze is right the line may have 
continued pi) dvvac|Oau, as in 73. 12. 

5. The latter part of this line is puzzling ; ’Aowévédcov does not seem admissible. The 
interlinear insertion may have been something like aéckov Biav airioy civac rod pH mpdrepdv pe 
divacbar adrov éeravayxdaat 7d Eroliyiov amodoiva (cf. '73. 18-g); but the papyrus is here so 
much damaged that verification of the reading is hardly possible. 

6 sqq. The position of this fragment in relation to that preceding is unknown, but 
the gap between them is unlikely to be large. If the fragment be so placed that the lacuna 
at the beginning of ll. 6-9 coincides with that in ll. 1-4, the loss at the ends would amount 
to about 20 letters. 

7. mpdxrope tev idiwruay: this is the first occurrence of this title which is a natural 
antithesis to the mpdxrop 6 én trav BacwWux\dv| mpooddev reraynévos in P. Petrie II. 22. 15. 
The relation of the mpdxrop idiwricdv to the mpaxrwp ~erxov, who is also found in the third 
century B.C. (feds mpdaxtop, P. Magd. 41. 5), remains doubtful. The mpdxrop fevxav 
certainly collected private debts, but he may have been distinguished from the mpdxrwp 
iStorexav by dealing with a special class of debtors; cf. P. Tebt. 5. 221, note. His peculiar 
functions, however, have not yet been clearly ascertained. 

Above r of ra is what appears to be a large y, to which we can attach no meaning. 

8-1o. This passage apparently implies that according to the provisions of the 
Sudypaupa a person who prevented or obstructed an execution was liable for three times 
the amount of the debt. At the beginning of ]. 10 dmod\eEo might possibly be read. 

g. The letters added above adda are coarsely written and imperfectly preserved. 
They are not more intelligible than the y above 1. 7. 

12 sqq. There are clear indications of another line where the papyrus breaks off 
below |. 12, and the similarity of handwriting and phraseology (emavayxac; cf. 1. 3) 
strongly suggests that Frs. (c) and (e) belong to the lower part of the petition. But Fr. (c) 
must be placed below |. 12, for there is a selis between Il. 15 and 16, which does not occur 
in Frs. (2) and (4). Whether Fr. (d), containing Il. 17-9, also belongs to 34 is more 
doubtful. jpapdua seems irrelevant, but we are ignorant of the context and the hand is 
extremely similar. Line 19 was the last of the document. 


Mummy A, 115 x 8-6cm. About B.c. 250. 

This papyrus contains on the recto the beginning of a petition addressed to 
Sonnophris, no doubt an official, by the tepédovA of a temple of Thoéris, 
reminding him of the protection which he had previously afforded them in 
connexion with the collection of the temple revenues, and apparently complaining 
of the conduct of a comarch ; but the papyrus breaks off before the point of the 
letter is reached. On the verso is a partly effaced document in 7 lines 


written in a large, thick cursive hand of an early type. The petition is to be 
assigned to the latter part of the reign of Philadelphus. 

Sovvdpper yaiplecv.| 
IIerocipis Iloxwbros Kai ’Ovve- 
gpis Ilerjowos fepddovrda Ovy- 
LA ‘ e ‘ 

plos peyadns Kal ot AolTroL 

5 lepddovrAor dtaredol dyer 
Tovs Popous evTakTovvTeEs 
eis TO lepoy dia Thy Tap bpav 
okélm|nv, kai viv Kal éy Tots 
4 7 c A e 
Eumpoobe yxpovots v7d v- 

10 [poly oxerragope O]a. 
emet Ilerocipis 6 Kopapxay 

[ 11 letters lav wavras 

‘To Sonnophris, greeting. We, Petosiris son of Pokoiis, Onnophris son of Petesis, 
hieroduli of the great Thoéris, and the rest of the hieroduli, have long administered with 
regularity the revenues of the temple on account of your protection, and now as in 
former times we are protected by you. Whereas Petosiris the comarch.. .’ 

1-2, For the punctuation adopted cf. 84. 1, note. We have found no other instance 
of the occurrence of the name Sovradpis, and the initial letter is not quite certain, 
the middle part having disappeared. ‘The ink representing the two ends of the supposed 
= might perhaps be regarded as accidental, but if so 1, 1 was begun further to the right 
than the lines following. 

3. Gvnpios: perhaps the temple of Thoéris at Oxyrhynchus, known from P. Oxy. 43, 
verso iv. 13, is meant. 

5-6. That the iepddovAc: were particularly concerned with collecting the revenues of 
the temples is a new fact. Very little is known about their position ; the title iepddovdos 
is applied to the Twins at the Serapeum, and in P. Tebt. 6. 25 the tepddSovdos are dis- 
tinguished from the xara pepos ¢6vn of the regular priests, from which passage Otto (Prvester 
und Tempel, i. p. 1181) infers that the word was applied to the lower branches in general of 
the priesthood. 

36. Notice or Loss. 

Mummy A 15. 14 X 10-2 cm. B.C. 229 (228). 

A notice of the loss of a sheep, addressed in duplicate to Harmiusis 
the gvdaxirns of Talaé in the 19th year of, probably, Euergetes. Cf. 144, 
a fragment of another notice addressed to Harmiusis, 37, which is also 



in duplicate; and P. Petrie II: p. 33(= III. p. x). The-téxt, written im acatge 
rude semi-uncial, is on the verso; the recto has a few traces of obliterated 

(“Erovs) 16 Owir B. mpocayyéd- 

et Appitor pudrakirne 

Taréovs SdtoKos azro- 


5 vuktos mpoBarov OnAv 
dad ‘ApaBiov d£ov (dpaypev) 7. 

(€rous) 10 Oodtr B. mpocayyédrAct 
Appar purakirne Tarn 
YdToKos amodwdeKEevat 
10 €k THS avAnS vUKTOS 
mpoBarov Onrv A pd&Biov 
daod a£iov (Spaxpar) 7. 

‘The roth year, Thoth 2. Satokos announces to Harmiusis, the guard of Talaé, 
that he has lost from the pen at night an unshorn ewe of Arabian breed, worth 8 

3. Tadéovs: for this form of the genitive cf. 37. 4. The genitive Taddovs occurs in 157 
and TdAy in |. 8, 144, and again in Roman times (p. 8), and the dative Tadn(?) in 117. 
8, while Taddy is the form used in the more correctly written papyri 106-7 and 138-142. 
The accusative Taddany and dative Taddy are found in 75.1 and 5. ‘This village, which 
was in the Kairns rémos, is to be distinguished from Tada@ (55. 2) in the Oxyrhynchite nome. 
6. daav: cf. Widdv and iptkoupov in 32. 12-6. 

37. Notice or Loss. 

Mummy A (probably A 9). 11-6 xX 10cm. B.C. 235 (234). 

Notification to the gvAaxirns of Talaé of the loss of two goats; cf. the 
preceding papyrus. The hand is of a similar type to that of 36, and is 
probably to be referred to the reign of Euergetes, but the year is very uncertain. 

(“Erovs) [JB [pnvds PappoloO[e 7. 
Tpocaly|yéAAe Stpdtios Yrpadto- 


vos OpaiE ths emvyovns Trove 
Hato. dudrakirnt kduns Tadréou's 

, v4 A ’ ~ 


‘Hpax|Xe\izou KAjpot aiyas dacei- 
s dto Epoeva Kai Oédeav ov TEL- 

by Oplalxpat rérrapes. 

(Erous) «8 plnlvis Bapyotc yn. mpoa- 
10 ayyéAAele Srpdztios Xtpdtwvos 

Opaé rhs emvyovns Irodepai- 

wu divjAakizne Kopns Taré- 

[ous a)roAw\eKEévar vuKTis 

‘ev Tot ‘H)pakdeitov Krjpet 
15 [alyas| daceis Sto epoeva 

kal Ojdeav ov Tiph dpaxpat 

5. |. dwoNwdexévat. 7. 1. O;ecav. 

‘The rath year, the 8th of the month Pharmouthi. Stratius son of Straton, Thracian 
of the Epigone, announces to Ptolemaeus, guard of the village of Talaé, that he has lost 
at night-time in the holding of Heraclitus two thick-haired goats, a male and a female, 
werth 4 drachmae.’ 

4. Tahéou's : cf. 86. 3, note. 


Mummy A. 25:6 x 21-6cm. B.C. 252-1 (251-0). 

A declaration on oath concerning a shipwreck, probably made by the 
captain of one of the government transports ; cf. P. Magd. 11 (of which P. Magd. 37 
is the beginning), a petition to the king by a vadt«Anpos of one of these boats, 
who had been delayed by a storm off Aphroditopolis (Atfih), near the scene of 
the disaster which is the subject of 38. 

Below the oath are 5 more lines, and g or Io narrow lines have been added in 
the right-hand margin, which are too incomplete for continuous decipherment, 

N 2 


but conclude with the date, the 34th year (of Philadelphus). The writing is 
extremely cursive. 

| 15 letters | gmodef 
TNPLOVs =| [a] © [s ole c's EPNY HELO. 
avtov ovy(y)pa Wat avt.|. evit[.|. wo... a 
avéhaBév pe Kal ouvKatamdéw TovTOLS 

5 [€lws tod mopov Tov Kata Tov Gppov Tov 
AgpoditomoXrnv, avé“ou dé yevopévov 
Kai Tov cupiwy vTrép THY okKNYI\|Y) OvTaY 
ovvéBn kdelvae Tov Se€cdv Totxov Tob 
mAotov Kai Katadivat Td mAotoy dia 

10 [Tlov7o. 
opvtiwm d¢ Baoiéa TIrodepatov kai 
("Aplowdny Piirjddergov Oelovds ‘Adedpods 
kai Oeovs Ywripas Tovs Tov7{o|v 
yovjelis eivar Ta mpoyeypappéva 

15 (aAn 67. 

‘,, and I sailed down with them as far as the channel by the harbour of Aphro- 
ditopolis; but a wind having arisen and the Syrian cloths being above the cabin, it came 
about that the right side of the ship listed and the ship thereby sank. And I swear by king 
Ptolemy and Arsinoé Philadelphus, gods Adelphi, and by the gods Soteres their parents, 
that the aforesaid statements are correct. 

5. tov dppoy tov "AdpodiromoXitny : the site of Aphroditopolis is only 14 miles from the 
Nile, and its port does not seem to have borne a separate name of its own. P. Magd. 37. 
1 has yevopévov yxerpavos [? wepi|é Adpodirns modlews. The épyos rod Apowoirov mentioned in 
|. 4 of that papyrus is probably, as the editors remark, Ptolemais dpuov. 

7. ovpiov: cf. 51. 3, note. Apparently they were piled up on deck above the level of 
the cabin. 

13. The gods Soteres are also mentioned in another Bavwdixds dpxos written in the 34th 
year (unpublished), of which only the ends of lines are preserved; but they are omitted 
(apparently) in P. Petrie III. 56 (a). 4 (16th—-27th years) and 56 (4). 7 (after the 26th year). 
In 56 (a). 3, where the editor restores (Guyver) Baowéa Lrodepaioy Kai tov vidy Tro Xepaior, 
we should prefer SBaowéa Tro \Aeuaioy preceded either by a title of the person taking the 
oath or by a name in the dative; cf. 56 (4). 5. The deification of Soter and Berenice took 
place in the earlier part of Philadelphus’ reign, but the year is not known. Otto (Priester 
und Tempel, i. pp. 143-6) places it between the 7th and r5th years. ; 




Mumny 5. 17°38 x 8cm. B.C. 265 (264). 

A letter authorizing the embarkation upon a government transport of 
a quantity of corn, which was due from certain xAfpor. Xanthus and Euphranor, 
the two principals here concerned, recur in 100 and the latter also in 101, and on 
the analogy of those two documents the corn which is the subject of the present 
order is no doubt to be explained as rent. It is evident that the government 
frequently resumed possession of land which had been granted to military 
settlers, after whose names it nevertheless continued to be called ; cf. 81 and 
52. 26, note. The official status of Xanthus and Euphranor is not given, but they 
must both have been connected with the State granaries. The corn was apparently 
delivered in the first instance to Euphranor and was forwarded by him to 
Xanthus, who was of superior rank and probably occupied a position similar to 
that of Semnus in 101. As that document is the latest of the series it is even 
possible that Semnus was Xanthus’ successor. The mention of the village 
of Peroé in 84 (a). 7 indicates that the district both here and in 100-1, which came 
from the same mummy as 84 (a), was the Kwirns. 

EZavOos Evdpavopr kat Nikoorpadrov Kai 
xalpev. otvtagov ITavoaviov, ctuBorov 
Hetpnjoat dia Kidde- (Ole duiv ypaydcbe 
lolus “Qpwi eis KovTo- (KyiAAns 7 6 vatKAnpos 

5 (Toy Baoidixov ep ov vadtkAnpos 15 (klat detypa ochpayicdo- 
Kat kuBepyitns av- [O]o, Kal iulily avevéykare. 
tos “pos roy émire- Eppwoo. (érovs) Ka 
Taypévoy otrov Owd 1. 
[T]@u Ade€dvdpouv On the verso 

10 Kat Bpopévov KArpat Evdpévopt. 

5: BacAtxov above the line, 


‘Xanthus to Euphranor, greeting. Give orders for the delivery through Killes to 
Horus on the State barge, of which the master and pilot is the said Horus, of the corn 
Jevied upon the holding of Alexander and Bromenus and Nicostratus and Pausanias; and 
let Killes or the ship-master write you a receipt and seal a sample, and bring them to me. 
Good-bye. The 21st year, Thoth r. (Addressed) To Euphranor.” 

3. Killes was perhaps zapa roy Bacidtxav ypapparéwr, like Nechthembes in 98. Io. 
4. covto tov: cf. Diod. xix. 12 mAotov Kovtwrov. 

Ts .eCt. 98.12. The object was of course to prevent the corn from being tampered 
with during its transit. 

40. Letrer or Potemon to HarimMourueEs. 

Mummy 13. 32-7 X 11cm. B.C. 261 (260). 

This letter is one of a group (40-4) addressed to Harimouthes, who in 44. 
g-1o is called the toparch of the lower toparchy (i.e. of the Oxyrhynchite nome), 
while in 85. 10, written like 40-8 several years earlier than 44, he is described as 
nomarch. Unless we are to assume that one of these descriptions is incorrect, 
or that the Harimouthes in 85 is a different person, it must be concluded either 
that Harimouthes combined the two offices of nomarch and toparch, or, what 
is the more natural inference, that he was first one and then the other, which 
suggests that the office of toparch was the superior. In Rev. Laws, however, 
the nomarch is regularly given precedence (cf. e. g. xxxvii. 3), though the passage 
in xli. 16-7 r&u mpoeotyxdTe ToB vowod voudpxne 7) ToTAapxnL suggests that their 
functions differed little. Cf. note on P. Tebt. 61 (0). 46. The present letter and 
Al are both from Polemon, whose position is not stated but was apparently 
above that of Harimouthes. He here writes somewhat obscurely about the sale 
of some barley. 

The correspondence of Harimouthes, as is shown by 44. 9 and 86. 3, belongs 
to the latter part of the reign of Philadelphus. 

TloA€pov ‘ApipotvOne Spaxpry plav ovets 
xalpev. mepl Toy gor pr) WAnpl@o)nu Kal yap 
oupBdrov yeypapapev of mapa Kepkiwvos 
Kpizovt cat KaddXtkret exovow On €« mapa- 

5 Wa yévnTar ws erre- 15 ypapne €x Tod doyt- 
oTavkas. émictaco o7nplov. 

Hévrov akpiBas Eppwao. (€rovs) KO “Enid xa. 


é7t THS KpLOns On the verso 
ys ovyyéypayat Apipovdnu. 
Io Tins doce 

7. 1. pevrot. 

‘Polemon to Harimouthes, greeting. I have written to Criton and Callicles about the 
receipts, to have your requests carried out. But you must clearly understand that for the 
barley no one will pay so much as 1 drachma, at which price you have agreed to supply 
it; for the agents of Kerkion have now obtained (a lower price?) in a memorandum from 
the audit office, Good-bye. The 24th year, Epeiph 21. (Addressed) To Harimouthes.’ 

4. Kaddixdet: probably the writer of 42-3. 

12. py mAnpye for pH mAnpoon is a doubtful and not very satisfactory reading ; but px 
is confirmed by the subjunctival termination of the verb, and pétoy in J. 7 shows that the 
writer was capable of mistakes. perpi cannot be read. 

14-5. Harimouthes had been forestalled in some way by Kerkion’s agents, but what 
exactly is implied by ¢xovow é€u wapaypapye is not clear. For zapaypady cf. P. Tebt. 188 kai 
mpooyeive( rac) "AmodNoviot . . . amd mapaypa(pis) rod app(ovér) (rddavroy) a. mapaypadey 
is similarly used of entries in a list or account, e.g. P. Tebt. 5. 189, where ray mapaypado- 
pevoy probably means simply the sums ‘entered against’ the @udakira, without any reference, 
as we formerly supposed, to false returns on their part. . 

41. Letter or PoLtemon to HarIMOUTHES. 

Mummy 13. 31-7 X 10-8 cm. About B.c. 261. 

Another letter to Harimouthes from Polemon, notifying him of the arrival 
of Mnason, a doxiyaorns, who was to collect certain arrears and sell some oil. 
Harimouthes is directed to obtain security for Mnason to the value of 1000 
drachmae, and to assist him in the performance of his duties. The nature of the 
arrears in question is not stated, but very likely they too were connected with 
the oil-monopoly, and it is evident that Mnason was personally responsible. In 
other papyri in this volume the doxipaorns is closely associated with the rpaze¢irns 
(cf. 106, introd.), but he appears here in a somewhat different capacity, though 
still in connexion with the royal bank (I. 25). 

TIodEpov ‘Aj pipolvOne yxai- 15 eoaxOjvat mavta, Kal 

pelv. ameot|aédk\apev mpos Hpi e€mioretAov rt 

gé Mvdowva {ro\v Soxipac- mapeiAnpas abTov Tapa 
Thy peTa guiAdalkns. dtey- TOY Tap HuoY paxipev 

5 yunoas ovly| abtov mapa- kal OTt dteyyunoers avrov 


povis (Spaxpav ?) A adlels adtov 20 Tav A (dpaxpar), emiperciav O€ 

clcayayely TH Opetdr- motnoat omws Kal Td brdp- 

pata KalO|e ovyKertat xov edaoy &’ adrod HON 

mpos Huals,| TO mpooTipoy mpabje Kai Tin ava- 
10 aita. cupBadov Tapa cav- Kopiabetoa meant emi THY 

Too ogov. ML. emiTpEeel 25 [BaotAtkihv) Tpdmegar. 

dmoBidfecOar avrov Kal : ‘ 4 : 

5 wie nOe|s als eg KOU OUVETE On the verso 

AapBdvov adra@t mpos TO ‘Alpipovdne. 

‘Polemon to Harimouthes, greeting. I have sent to you Mnason the controller under 
guard. Obtain security of 1000 drachmae for his remaining, and allow him to collect the arrears 
as agreed upon between us; and contribute the penalty out of your own funds... . . Assist 
him also so that everything be collected, and send me word that you have received him 
from my soldiers and that you will obtain the security of tooo drachmae for him; and be 
careful to see that the existing store of oil be now sold by him, and the price be collected 
and paid into the royal bank. . . (Addressed) To Harimouthes.’ 

4-5. Steyyunoas . . . rapaporiis: cf, 92-38, which are specimens of contracts made with 
sureties for the appearance of accused persons. For pera pvdakis cf. e.g. 59. 4. 

6. aple's is somewhat short for the space. 

9-10. The arrears apparently involved a penalty upon Mnason himself; the precautions 
taken against his absconding show that he was in difficulties. 

11. The traces suggest ogous py Or ocovdnv; the apparent v prevents us from reading 
éxos wh, with which émerpéeer would have to be a middle future. 

13. #pas e| might be read at the beginning of the line. 

18. For pdytpor in attendance upon officials cf. P. Tebt. 113. 81, &c. 

21 sqq. The xai perhaps indicates that the édeAnuara had arisen in connexion with 
the oil-industry. According to the provisions of Rev. Laws xlviii, the manufactured oil 
was sold to the retail traders by the olxovéyos and dvrrypapets, while the Soxipaorns plays no 
part. But that ordinance had probably not yet been issued ; and in any case the appearance 
of the Soxtzaorns here may be due to some special circumstances. 


Mummy 13. 19:8 x 8-1. cm. B.C. 262 (261). 

This letter and 48 were written to Harimouthes by Callicles, an official 
superior whose title is nowhere stated. The subject of the present, rather obscure, 
note is the delivery of some corn which was due from Harimouthes. 

KadXxrAjs ‘Apipovdnt 

, Q a \ 
XaIpely, TOV @LTOV OV 


epns peraBadeia ba’ t| 
Tols mapa TOV olTONO- 
-g yov doom pev avevny- 
xaor Ews Daddt r wapa- 
deEbpucOa, tov S€ rowdy 
€ap py peraBddnts 
éws Addp n ddcopev 
10 Aevkion ev ddecdjpari. 
€ppwao. (érous) Kd 
Addp 6. 
On the verso 
and hand ‘Aévdp 6, mapa KadX- ist hand ‘Apipovdne. 
KA€ous mept Tov airou. 

5. ¢ Of aveynvoxacr corr. from a. 7. v Of rov above the line. 

‘Callicles to Harimouthes, greeting. With regard to the corn which you said you 
would transfer to the agents of the sitologi, the amount which they have paid (?) up 
to Phaophi 30 we will accept; but the rest, if you do not transfer it before Athur 8, we 
shall give to Leucius as a debt. Good-bye. The 24th year, Athur 4. (Addressed) To 
Harimouthes. (Endorsed) Athur 4, from Callicrates concerning the corn.’ 

3. For peraSaddew in connexion with corn cf. 45. 6. 

43. Letrer or CaLuicLtes To HarImouruHeEs. 

Mummy 13. 16-7 x 86 cm. B.C. 261 (260). 

A second letter from Callicles (cf. 42) to Harimouthes, asking for some 
sesame to be delivered at Pela for the manufacture of oil. As the Revenue 
‘Papyrus shows, the nomarchs and toparchs were among the officials responsible 
for the management of that industry, so that it is natural to find Harimouthes 
acting in this connexion; cf. 40, introd. 

Kadvurdrfs ‘Apipot0n 

xalpev. ovvragov perpyalac 

TO onoapov 7d eu ITédax 

II pwropaxwt Kai Tat otTodOy[wL,| ov yap €oTLv 

b ~ , , 7 A» 
5 €v THLE TOAEL ONOapov. iva ovY 


pnOev borephe Ta €Alaovpyia 
dpovticov iva pr airias exns 
kai Tov|s] €[Alatoupyovs améo- 
10 éppwoao. (€rous) KO 'Emeif x. 
On the verso 
and hand (€rous) kd ’Emeih x, mapa 
Kadnrkréovs tepi on- tst hand: ‘Apipovdnt. 
odpov wore II pwropdyot. 

4+ Kal TWL giToAoy wt added above the line. 

‘Callicles to Harimouthes, greeting. Give orders for the sesame at Pela to be 
measured out to Protomachus and the sitologus, for there is no sesame at the city. Take 
care then that the oil-presses do not fall short, lest you be blamed; and send me the oil- 
makers. Good-bye. The 24th year, Epeiph 20. (Addressed) To Harimouthes. (Endorsed) 
The 24th year, Epeiph 20, from Callicles about sesame for Protomachus.’ 

5. tHe Ae: sc. Oxyrhynchus. 

6-8. Cf. Rev. Laws xlv. 13 sqq. and, for the strictness of the rules regulating the 
movements of éedaovpyoi, 262d. xliv. 8 sqq. 


Mummy 13. 12-4 X 33:3 6M. B.C. 253 (252). 

A letter to Harimouthes from an official named Dinon, giving urgent orders 
for the native soldiers in Harimouthes’ district to be sent up under a captain, and 
also for the dispatch of some labourers for harvesting purposes. No reason is 
assigned for the movement of the soldiers, and its object cannot be guessed. 
The document is written in a fine hand across the fibres of the papyrus. 

Acivey ‘ApipovOne xaipav. eypdapév cor mporepov mEpt TOV paytpov 
oa o ) “~ € X X , cu ’ “~ \ 7 
Tov dvTov év rois bd oe Toros brws amocTad@owy peTa BibedApeivios 


povos Kabdre ypdper ‘ArodrA@vios 6 SioKyTHS, aoatirws dé Kat TOdS Emt- 

VEY Papi 
pévous Ocpiatas Kata tiv dSobeiody cor ypadyy, dpavTes SE oe KaTapabv- 

5 @iuny dey Kal viv emtoreidAal co. ws av ody AByIs Tiv EmioToARY 

TAaVTAa WapEepya 


- b] 7 > Ws t ~ \ 7 4 \ X\ 4 
ToLnodwevos amroaTelAov mpos Hmas Tovs paxipvous dn, Tods € Oeptatas 
@s av 
id 7 , ’ 7 € -~ ’ A € yy A i; oY 
eToimous moinonts emiaTeiAovy nuivy ov yap ws ETvXEv Tepl TovTwY Ti»y 

ToeiTat 6 SLorKyT Hs. Eppwoo. (€Tous) AB Meyelp Ly. 
On the verso 

Tomapx yl (in demotic) ApipovOne 
10 THS KaTw Mecheir 14 

In the reverse direction, above ‘Apipovn, 
2nd hand Mexip 16, 

TEplL paxipov 
Kal Oepiotov. 

1. v of rwy corr. from p. 2. « Of BibeApecmos corr. from 7. 3. o€ was inserted 
above xa: and again crossed out. 4. oe added above the line. g. « Of remapyne 
corr. from s. 

‘Dinon to Harimouthes, greeting. I have written to you before concerning the native 
soldiers in the district under you, that they be sent with Bithelminis the captain in com- 
pliance with the letter of Apollonius the dioecetes, and similarly that the harvesters be 
sent who have been levied in accordance with the list given to you; but seeing that you 
are negligent I thought it my duty to send to you instructions again now. Therefore 
as soon as you receive this letter put everything else aside and send me the soldiers 
at Once, and so soon as you can get the harvesters ready let me know; for the dioecetes 
is showing no ordinary anxiety with regard to this. Good-bye. The 32nd year, Mecheir 
13. (Addressed) To Harimouthes, toparch of the lower toparchy. (Endorsed) Mecheir 14, 
concerning soldiers and harvesters.’ 

3. This is the same Apollonius who is mentioned in 95. 10, 110. 43 al., P. Petrie II. 
4 (3). 1, &c. The earliest date at which he is known to have held the office of dioecetes is 
the 27th year of Philadelphus (Rev. Laws xxxviii. 3; cf. P. Amh. II. 33. 28 and 37); the 
latest is supplied by the present document (32nd year, Mecheir 13). 
_ émvyeypappevous indicates compulsory labour; cf. 47. 12. 

45. Letrer or Leopamas To Lysimacuuts. 

Mummy A 16, 12-7 X 7°5 cm. B.C. 257 (256). 

This and the following five documents (46-50) are all letters written by 
Leodamas, an official connected with the corn-revenues, probably in the 
Oxyrhynchite nome since the Oxyrhynchite village Sephtha is mentioned in 


45. 5. Four of the letters (45-8) are addressed to a subordinate called 
Lysimachus, who seems to have been specially concerned with the collection and 
transport of grain; and the correspondence, which covers the 28th to the 3oth 
years of Philadelphus, consists chiefly of instructions on official matters. Leo- 
damas was a careless writer, and mistakes are more frequent than usual at this 
period of comparatively correct Greek. 

In 45 on reaching the bottom of the papyrus Leodamas turned it over and 
finished his letter on the verso; cf. 48. 

Aco[ddpjais] Alvjorpl dyer 15 olTov omws pynbev 

{ Avotpaxor} yxaipev. broncierbe ev au- 

ws a[v] AdBnre Thy é[m- TOL GAG WavTA Tapa- 
[aToA? |v mapayiverbe perpnoacbe. Kal draws 

5 [ja [rlov ev SépOar cirov Li) NoyedoeTe mrapevpéale|e 
peraBar[no\be mpd rod On the verso 
To... To e€uBareir, 20 pndemide TO ap. [. t]Kov 
kal el TL Keppdriov kat tmmarpikoy, [a|\AX 
AeAoyedKaTe PépeE- TL A€hoyeUKaTE KaTAa- 

10 Te evOéws. Kal Ta xopioare eis TO xopa- 
Aourd meipaabe Tikév. [€p|paoo. 
ouvdyev Kai pn) 25 (Erovs) kn Xoijaly. 
dmroAumaved Oe, 
kat Tov mapa Pirwvos Avi cipayx or. 

6. ov of rov corr. from wv? 

‘Leodamas to Lysimachus, greeting. As soon as you receive this letter, come here in 
order to transfer the corn at Sephtha before lading . .., and if you have collected any money 
bring it at once, and try to levy the rest, and do not leave any arrears; and take care that 
you do not leave the corn from Philon still owing from him, but secure payment of 
everything, and take care that on no pretext whatever you collect the... and horse-doctors- 
tax ; but if you have collected anything credit it to the embankments-tax. Good-bye. The 
28th year, Choiak. (Addressed) To Lysimachus.’ 

14. Pidwvos: he is also mentioned in 47. 6 and 49. fo. 

21. A tax for doctors at this period, called tarpixdv, is known, e.g. from 102; but an 
impost for maintaining veterinary surgeons is new. ‘The reading trmarpixdy is nearly 
certain, but that of the first three letters of the tax which is coupled with it is very doubtful. 
« or ¢ can be read in place of p. 

23. xoparixov: cf. 112. 13, note. 



Mummy A 16. 13-1 X 6-2 cm. B.C. 258 (257). 

Another letter from Leodamas to Lysimachus on official matters; cf. 
45, introd. 

Aewdépas Avolt- mpdooes aANa fa- 
, 7 A y+ \ 
pdx. yaipe. Ovpaire. Eder dE 
6 7t dv mp@rov Xo- TaAGL Ta EVEXU- 
yevons dos Kpdrn- 15 pa avtav ade ely at 
SN A ~ 4 ‘ 7 oy * 
5 Tl TO Aolrdv Tod v[av- kal mempdoOat. ert ovv 
A e 4 \ A A x > - 
Aov (dpaxpas) o€ vrodoyi- Kal viv 7 TO apyvploy 
A \ - > 2 “A AQ Oe 
gas (Spaxpas) 6, kai ovpBo- elodyeTe 7) TA Evexu- 
Aov rotnoa aré- pa avTav amoaTéA- 
Xovra avriv Tas 20 AeTe Oras mpabh. 
IO 0€ mAnpels. Kal Eppwco. (erovs) kn Ilaam «x. 
Tovs Aoltrovs OvK €ic- A line erased. 

On the verso 

II. o¢ Of eompacces corr, from ec. 12. |, padupeire, 

‘Leodamas to Lysimachus, greeting. As soon as ever you collect anything, pay 
Crates the rest of the freight charges, 75 drachmae, subtracting 4 drachmae; and get 
a receipt stating that he has received the 75 drachmae in full. You do not exact payment 
from the others, but are neglectful. Their securities ought to have been here long ago and 
sold; now therefore at length either collect the money or send their securities to be sold. 
Good-bye. The 28th year, Phaophi 20. (Addressed) To Lysimachus,’ 


Mummy A 16. 22-6 x 7-3 cM. B.C. 256 (255). 

Another letter to Lysimachus from Leodamas, giving him various directions 
concerning his official duties. The letter is written with more than usual 
carelessness, syllables and even whole words being sometimes omitted, and the 


damaged surface of the papyrus renders several passages very difficult to 


Acwddépas Avoipa- 

a 7 
xo. xaipev. Anpnrpl- 
ov tod Tod Ilappevio- 
vos viod otvTagov Tov|s 

5 Kapmovs mavTas ouveE- 

, ¢ , é tek 
xés, wraitws 0€ Kal T@Y 
adAdov tov [.|\7[.Jexal.. . ; 

a x yy 
ouvTérakTat yap on 
€ws Tod Ilavyjpou pnvds, 
€ te X ‘ ~ 
10 w@oav’tas d€ Kal THY Xol- 
Tov Ews TOD apiOmod, 
/ \ N Pe aan 
Oepife de kal apav 
kal NemTaylois vyTac. . 
.{.Jav ofs kaOnkas. et d€ 
5 Ts mupos tmalpléaTnKev Ka- 
Ss ates ~ 
Oapos map ‘at|tiiody arro- 

[lod iva rip[jy .|.p.{.]. 

copey TOY yLvo_ev|w\y 




\ an e F 
dé Aoira@v p’. .| . axpou, 
xpela yap EoTW pa. . LKov. 
kal ddAvpay 6€ kial Kp\LOr7v 
¢ , o r , 
eToimace tva ‘Tapap\eTpn- 

, XX la ; 
cope els TO Pacirrkér. 
Kal Tovs poaxous Tovs Ta- 
pa Pirwvos Tot Avoavi(ov) Kat 
Tov mapa Pirwvos Kat Xzo- 

, , > > tA \ ’ 
Kéous €l plev améo(Tadr)Kas els 
Atxopiav, ef d& pi) améc- 
Teldov T...¥ Hon Wa 
atrodo0Gaw AvKkoundn, 
oUT@® yap ovvTéTaxer. 

\ N ’ Q ye 22 

Kal THY EmloTOAnY amro- 
orethov Anpnrplalt 
éy TaXEL Wa pi) Tals 
> a yy 
ATOOTAaA. Eppeco. 

(erovs) KO Meyeip k. 

On the verso 


12. ¢ of Oepitew corr. 15. t Of ma plearnkey above 6 (?) erased. 20. w of 

Aowrwy corr. from ¢ or p. 

‘Leodamas to Lysimachus, greeting. Give instructions to (collect?) the crops of the 
son of Parmenion unremittingly, and likewise those of the others... since instructions 
have already been given to do so by the month of Panemus, and likewise those of the 
rest up to the full number, and to mow and reap them and. . . If there is any sifted wheat to 
hand with any one, sell it in order that we may pay over the value of the necessary dues, 
but ... the rest, for it is wanted ...; and prepare both olyra and barley in order that we 
may measure it to the State. With regard to the calves from Philon son of Lysanias and 
the calf from Philon and Spokes, if you have sent them to Dicomia (it is well); but if not 
send them at once that they may be delivered to Lycomedes, for those are his instructions. 
And send the letter to Demetrius immediately in order that a slave may not be sent. Good- 
bye. The 29th year, Mecheir 20. (Addressed) To Lysimachus.’ 


4. It is not clear whether ovvrafov governs kaprovs or an infinitive is to be supplied. 
On the former hypothesis ovvtafov might mean ‘assess,’ a sense which would suit this 
context but is rare, and, in view of both the other instances of ovvrdocew in ll. 8 and 32, 
where the ordinary meaning ‘ instruct’ is appropriate, and the frequency of cvvra€ov followed 
by an infinitive (e.g. 89. 2), decidedly difficult, especially as the infinitives in ]. 12 seem to 
depend on cwvragorv. It seems preferable, therefore, to supply an infinitive meaning ‘ collect’ 
or ‘assess’; cf, the omission in ]. 29. 

g. Panemus corresponded approximately to Pauni at this period; cf. App. i. The 
action which Lysimachus was told to perform had to be carried out before the end of 
the harvest. 

13. Aewrayios seems to be equivalent to Aerroyeiors, meaning ‘barren land.’ The 
beginning of the next word suggests only dus, ‘plough-share,’ but the third letter is 
certainly r, and probably o has been omitted and the word is some form of cuvrdccew. av 
in ]. r4 is the termination of an infinitive, perhaps 4 p ay (cf. 1. 12), but the first letter could 
be almost anything. 

17. The verb following tuzyv very likely began with rapa, possibly mapa or y|ca@per. 

20. |. axpou is probably the termination of an imperative following » 4: but the form seems 
to be erroneous. 

23. (rapap lerpyooper : cf. 45. 17 mapauerpnoacbe,. 

29. Acxwpiay: this village (cf Tprkwpia in the Arsinoite nome) is not otherwise known. 
Leodamas has omitted the apodosis to ef peév... Atckopiay, anoolr... must be meant for 
cméaredoy, but it is difficult to reconcile the vestiges of the termination with eo», Perhaps 
Leodamas made a mistake and wrote amoor ... . TetAor. 

; aGamats: OF Has; cf. 112.57; P: Petrie ILL 65 (a). tr. 

36. Possibly drooradye', but Leodamas generally omits « adscript with subjunctives, 

e.g. 46. 4 and 20. 

48. Letter or LEopAmMas To LyYSIMACHUS. 

Mummy A (probably 16). Il-5X 71cm, BiG 2i5 (254): 

Another letter from Leodamas to Lysimachus, asking for information with 
regard to advances of seed-corn. After concluding the letter with the customary 
salutation and date, Leodamas changed his mind and erased them, continuing 
the letter on the verso; cf. 45. The writing on the recto is across the fibres. 

Acwddépals| Avaipjdxot 

xalipev. Ta& oeppa- 

Ta Tov dunyyunpe- 

vov KAjpev Tivt ypa- 
5 Wlas edwxas; od yap 

evpicke év Tois Bu- 

Brtos. madd. ody ypa- 


Was abtav TOV oTEp- 
4 > (4 - 
patov amooretXov 
10 pot On, Kat dos TaL 
Leet ) 4 X 
map AvTimdtpov, €av 
6€ pi) KaTadappdyns 
ddrrAwi Sds tva phy em- 
K@Av@pat Tov Adyor 
15 ovvOcivat. [[eppwao (erous) Al] 
[Mecop(n) xn] 

On the verso 
kai @oavTws METPN- 
4 obliterated lines. 

22 €ppwao.| (€rovs) A Mecop(%}) xn. 
8. 1. ra oméppara. 12. |. xatradapBdvns. 

‘Leodamas to Lysimachus, greeting. To whom did you give in writing the seed 
for the holdings which have been taken in pledge? I cannot find the entry in the books. 
Write another list, therefore, of the seed issued for them and send it to me at once; and 
give it to the agent of Antipater or, if you cannot catch him, to some one else, that I may 
not be prevented from making up my account. Likewise measure... Good-bye. The 
30th year, Mesore 28,’ 

3. Sinyyenpéevav KAnpov: for an example of a deed placing a «Ajpos in pledge cf. 
Wilcken, Ak/enstiicke, no. 11. 

49. Letrer or Lreopamas To LAOMEDON. 

Mummy A 16, 11:2 x 8-6 cm. About B.c. 257. 

A short letter from Leodamas to Laomedon, another of his subordinates, 
giving him directions about the transport of corn and olives. The reference 
to the latter is interesting, since olives are not mentioned either in Rev. Laws 
or in the Petrie papyri. 

Acwddpas Aaopédovtt |xai- 
pev. tmopevOnte ob adv akovlons 

Avoipayxov Kai émtarotdacoy Sires 



av 6 otros éuBAnOqe ért Tax{Llo\ra 
kal ovvKardyaye pe adrod. 


> X fy es , yo 
= cjimjov de aitar KaOdmep éypa- 
fi t ) os e DI bd , 
Wa (alir@e dros av euPddrnrat 
Tas €dalas eis Bikous 7 els pola, 
kal meipacbe ws adkoT@Taras 
~ 4 x , 
Io KaTayayelv, Kal mapa Pidwvos 
-~ - ¢ , ed x 
tod Avoaviov trouvnooy bras av 
AGBnt Tas eAaias Tas Kadas 

Kabdrep avTat éyparpa. 

On the verso 
15 els] THI modw 3 Aaopéd olvtt 
Moe sie aes 
ee leflers « 8. @ of para above the line. 

‘Leodamas to Laomedon, greeting. Go to whatever place you hear that Lysimachus 
is at, and take care that the corn is embarked as quickly as possible, and bring it down 
with him. Tell him that, as I wrote to him, he is to put the olives into jars or peéua for 
embarkation, and try to bring them as unbroken as possible. Remind him that he is to 
receive from Philon son of Lysanias the fine olives, as I wrote to him. Good-bye. 
(Addressed) To Laomedon . .., at the city.’ 

2. mopevOnrt: the reading of the penultimate letter is very doubtful, but it is as much 
like + as 6, which is the only likely alternative. 

8. pata are receptacles of some kind, either boxes or jars; cf. P. Petrie III. 65 (2). 6 
and P. Grenf. I. 14. 13-16, Bixoe occurring both times in the same context, as here. From 
P. Grenf. I. 14 it appears that a small paroy could contain 6 mégwa, and that 2 para of Parian 
marble could be inside a lamp-stand. poor, which are mentioned in P. Grenf. I. 14. 5 
immediately after a Bixos, seem to be allied to para, which are also found in ostraca (e.g. 
Sayce, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., xxiii, p. 214) as a measure of dyupor; cf. the povei(or) in P. 
Oxy, 146. 3. 

15. The mods is probably Oxyrhynchus; cf. 45, introd. 

50. Lertrer oF LEeopamMaAs To THEODORUS. 
Mummy A 16. 8-8 x 8 cm. About B.c. 257. 
A short letter from Leodamas (cf. 45, introd.) to Theodorus, another official, 
giving him instructions about the delivery of olyra to Lysimachus. The date is 
probably the 28th or 29th year of Philadelphus. 


‘Acla[d\duas Ocoddpar 
‘yalplev. avevnvoxapev els 7d 
Baoirikoy odvp(av) (dpTaBas) "Awrddp’. 
ad (obv vroXuTopevos cavTat 

5 TavTnv Tijy dAvpay TV 
Nourny arroméetpnooy Avoipa- 
NOUMWA.. NTs % «sie 

we 4 r 
€ppwoo. (€TOUS) K. 
On the verso 


2. ve Of aveynvoyapnev above the line. 6. » of Avomayer corr. from or, 

‘Leodamas to Theodorus, greeting. I have paid over(?) to the State 18342 artabae of 
olyra. Do you therefore leave this olyra for yourself and measure out the rest to 
Lysimachus, that it may be ... Good-bye. The 2/.|th year... (Addressed) To 

51. Lettrer or Drmopuon To PTOLEMAEUS. 

Mummy A 9. 9:9 X 35 CM. B.C. 245 (244). 

The following twelve documents (51-62; cf. 167-8), which are dated in the 
closing years of the reign of Philadelphus or the first few years of his successor, are 
all addressed to Ptolemaeus, the holder of some minor post in the Oxyrhynchite 
nome. His title is not mentioned, but his sphere was a village (59. 11), where 
he apparently exercised the functions of an officer of police (59-62), and had also 
financial duties (51. 2-4, 58. 7). He was probably subordinate to the archi- 
phylacites (56, introd.), and may have been a phylacites. Whatever his position, 
he did not always fill it to the satisfaction of his superiors, and on more than one 
occasion he received a reprimand (56. 7-8, 59. 9-12). 

In the present letter, as also in 52-3, the correspondent of Ptolemaeus is 
Demophon, who here sends instructions for the collection of dues upon green 
crops and for the purchase of ‘Syrian cloths’ (cf. note on 1. 3), in accordance 
with an order, a copy of which is enclosed, from Apollodotus, a higher official. 

Anpopov ITIrodepaior yxaipev. wtbroyéyplamta\e ths map ‘Arroddodédrou 
EM olvJans por emiaToANs 


mept THS Aoyelas, TGV yAwpav TavTiypadiov. m\pdtTe obv Tovs ||. .|| mpos 
dpytpioly| nynpakdras 

én Kabdrep ylélypamra, Tas O&€ oupias as [él\dv cor mapabey\rar ‘mpt\d- 
pevos AduBave apeoras 

Tiluav Tov broyeypappevor. Eppwao. (erovs) B Meyxip if. 

5 ‘AroAAddoTos Anpoddyt. xalpev. mpds THe T@v xAwpOv Aoyela yivjov 

On Kal aupias AduBave 

éf[adp|dxpous Kal éraddayjs Tod jutcovs Tov 6 (Spaxpav) (Boddy) (7)jLL0- 
Bédwor), toootro yap éxkeirat éy BacidtKod. eppwoo. (Erovs) B 
Mexip 18. 

On the verso ; 

TT rod cpaior. 

2. 1. nyopakdras, 

‘Demophon to Ptolemaeus, greeting. Appended is a copy of the letter which has 
come to me from Apollodotus about the collection of green-stuffs. Do you therefore exact 
payment now from the purchasers on the silver standard, in accordance with his instruc- 
tions; and any Syrian cloths that may be deposited with you accept, if satisfactory, and buy 
at the prices below written. Good-bye. The 2nd year, Mecheir 12. 

‘ Apollodotus to Demophon, greeting. Take in hand now the collection of the green- 
stuffs, and accept Syrian cloths at 6 drachmae with an agio on half the sum at the rate of 
14 obols in 4 drachmae, for that is the rate published by the government. Good-bye. The 
2nd year, Mecheir 12. 

‘(Addressed) To Ptolemaeus.’ 

2. By the dAoyeia ray xAwpar, as the following sentence shows, is meant the collection of 
the value of the green crops, not the crops themselves. What these particular x\opa were 
and who are signified by rovs mpos dpyvptov nyopaxdras is, however, obscure. ‘The latter 
phrase rather suggests the farming of a tax, and seeing that 52-3, which are also letters 
from Demophon to Ptolemaeus, not improbably refer to the évvdéuov, that impost might be 
supposed to be also the subject here. Or the xAwpa may well be the produce of royal 
domains sown with this class of crops, the share of which accruing to the government as 
rent had been sold; cf. P. Tebt. 27. 54 sqq- pnOcva tov yeopyovytav ny Bacsduxiy kal THY ev 
adpéecet yar] ehabecdat T@V xAwpov may 22. TOV éydrorenbyoop!| é évov, av ai Tetpat kal TovTwY ai 
aoane vat 8o\cioas katateOnoovra ent |r ov Tpare(a v| v| mpos Ta kaénkovta eis TO Ba [ouAckor |. If 
eyB.orxn no operov there means ‘to be collected’ as the analogy of other passages suggests, 
the expression would be very similar to Noyeta ray xAwper in 51, 

3. ovpias: cf. Hesych. ovpia’ 7 maxeia xhaiva, fro. amo TOU oLovpyns, 7) OTe ev Kammadokia 
yiverat, ovror be 2upor, and Pollux 7. 61 jv d€ cuptay of roddol, Tav’tnv aitoroKoy ipatiov of KoptKol. 
Besides 38. 7 ovpia are mentioned in a mutilated papyrus of about this period. belonging to 
Dr. Mahafty, "Axeotap Se 6 oikovdpos| tm \dpxew ovpias mpodoOjva Exdorar éis | v (Spaxp ) t. 
The ovpiac were apparently included among the fabrics monopolized by the government, 
the producers of such fabrics, as is shown by 67-8, being paid on a scale similar to that 

O 2 


fixed in the present passage. The mention of an eraddayy in |. 6 is another point of con- 
nexion between the three documents. In 67 and 68 the rate of the addayn or éemadAayn is 
3 obol to the stater, while here it is 14 obols to the stater, reckoned upon half the amount, 
which comes to the same thing. 

mapabarra : cf, Rev. Laws xliv. 5, &c. 


Mummy A (probably Ag). Fr. (a) 11-7 x 25, Fr. (6) 10:2 9-8 cm. About B.c. 245. 

Another letter from Demophon to Ptolemaeus (cf. 51, introd.), enclosing a 
list of persons who are generally assessed at the rate of 1 drachma 4 obols per 
aroura (a lower rate occurring in |. 23). Owing to the incompleteness of the 
introductory letter the purport of the whole document is somewhat obscure; 
but apparently the list refers to the amounts payable by certain inhabitants of 
Tholthis, a village of the Oxyrhynchite nome, who had pastured their flocks 
upon Crown lands in various parts of the lower toparchy. Whether the impost 
in question is connected with the Aoyefa yAwpdv in 51. 2, or is identical with 
the tax called évycwoy (182; cf. P. Petrie III, 109 (a@)) or els ras vouas, levied 
for use of the royal pastures (Wilcken, Os¢. I. pp. 191 and 265), is not clear. From 
references in receipts for évydutov to the number of the sheep Wilcken (2. c.) infers 
that that impost was proportionate to the number of sheep turned out to graze, 
whereas in 52 the tax is clearly proportionate to the area of the pasturage. The 
terms of the introductory letter in 52, especially the references to the ‘ using up’ 
of the pastures and the securities to be obtained in consequence, suggest 
that the proceedings of the persons mentioned in the list had been irregular 
(cf. P. Tebt. 66. 75 sqq.); but this hypothesis does not accord very well with 58, 
another letter from Demophon to Ptolemaeus enclosing a precisely similar list 
of persons who are mostly assessed at 1 drachma 4 obols on the aroura (cf. 180, 
a fragment of a third document of the same character). The phrase zpoodyyedyua 
THs TpeOTNS SexnwEpov applied to the list in 53. 2 recalls the terminology employed 
in regard to the collection of ordinary taxes, and on the whole it seems 
preferable to identify the payments in 52 and 538 with the evvemor. 

In Il. 24-33, which are on a separate fragment, Demophon’s handwriting 
is smaller, and perhaps this piece, which in any case is not part of Cols. i or ii, 
belongs to 180 or another similar list, though not to 53. 

Fr, (a). Con. 
A\npoparv IIrodepator yatper. 
‘imjoyéypadpd co Tov ard OddOews 



‘ot Kalraveveunkaow ex THS Baot- 
‘AKHS) yas THS €v THL KaTw To- 
5 \mapxiat Ta oviépara Kal ra 
TAHOn Kat @lyTiv@y KAT pov 
amokéxpnvTat Tals vopais. ov 
ovv TELPO oS aoparéoTaTa 
dteyyunoa dros pnbey i\d- 
10 mTopa e€ vorTépov yivnTa., 

oljiar Waproe. a+. Ve\|.\ola|.. « 

Col. ii. 
|. . .Jocws Bapxatos idiarns) doatrws (paypal) i¢ (reTpeBodrov) (pw- 
II{. . .Juas Kupnvaios ris émyovas (Spaxpuat) @ (dvdBoror), 
A[n\unrptos Pitwvos Kupnvaios rhs 

15 [emt|yovns (Spaxpat) n (mevr@Bodov) (7érapTor), 
l|.v.. Tlel@ros rotujv Kai Ierep- 
pot61s Kopodmios (Spaxpat) @ (rérapror), 
“pos IIvaros iepeds yénros i¢ (dBords) (HptwBérLov), 
addAas 6 avros (apovpas) B (dpaypat) y (dvdBodor), 

20 Ileroceipis Pavynros Kai ITeroceipis 
IIacvyevios Kai ‘Imrédvoos (apovpas) BO’ (paypal) y (mevtéPBodov), 
addas ITeroceipis Adppywtros apdxou 

[ dlpovpas « (Spaxpal) € (tpidBoror), 
19. This line was inserted later. 22, ecpis Of merooetpts above the line, 
Fr. (4). 
ecioec ey eee TAS oe 
25 |apdkouv (apovpas)| 1 (Opaypat) Ki. . 

(ex tod IItoA epaiov i Kadardp|6pov 
eft omer TAS) EMLyovAS apa&K(ov) (apovpas) g ava) a (retp@Borov) (dpaxpat) t, 


[astesterouomenes lol. .js apd(kov) 1 av(&) a (reTp@Bodrov) (Spaxpai) Ky (dvoBorou), 
Preaceay toteurecr |ros kat Apptdors rrotpéves 

BOM lauren . apd(kov) (apovpas) « (Spaypat) is (reTp@Borov), 
operon tery acs |px®vovos apd(kov) (dpovpav) a (Spaxpy) a (TeTpwBodror), 
Reeerromey aa, | IITaotros yewpyos 
fedecouene Reel rea Ja. (rupod) BZ. 

‘Demophon to Ptolemaeus, greeting. I have written below the names of the inhabitants 
of Tholthis who have used pasturage in the Crown land in the lower toparchy, and the 
amounts, and the holdings in which they have used up the pastures. Do you therefore 
try to obtain as good security as possible, in order that there may be no subsequent loss, for 
I think that you... 

‘,..0s, Barcean, private, likewise 17 dr. 43 ob.; P... ias, Cyrenean of the Epigone, 
9 dr. 2 ob.; Demetrius son of Philon, Cyrenean of the Epigone, 8 dr. 54 0b.; ... son of 
Teos, shepherd, and Petermouthis son of Komoapis, 9 dr. 3 ob.; Horus son of Pnas, 
priest... 17 dr. r4 ob., and on 2 more arourae the same Horus 3 dr. 2 ob.; Petosiris son 
of Phaues and Petosiris son of Pasigonis and Hippolysus on 24 arourae 3 dr. 5 ob.; on 
5 more arourae of aracus Petosiris son of Auphmoiis 5 dr. 3 ob.,... In the holding of 
Ptolemaeus: Praxias son of Callidromos,... of the Epigone, on 6 arourae of aracus at 
1dr. 4 0b. 10 dr.>...-. on 14 arourae of aracus at 1 dr. 4:ob. 23 dr.2 Obici sane 
Harmiusis, shepherds, on 10 arourae of aracus 16 dr. 4 ob.; ... son of ...rchonsis on 
rt aroura of aracus 1 dr. 4 ob.; ... son of Paous, cultivator, ... 24 artabae of wheat.’ 

3. ka'raveveunxaow : Cf. the xaraveveynuéery in P. Tebt. 61 (a). 188, &c. 

6. Possibly «at &\yrwev, but v does not suit the vestiges after the lacuna very well. Cf. 
note on |. 26. 

g. dvyyujoa: the object understood is probably rods ard Oodbews (cf. 41. 5 and 53. 3), 
not the kdjpor, though Suyyunpevoe kdjpor Occur in 48. 3. dopddecae in Connexion with the 
revenues derived from xAepd also occur in an obscure passage in P. Tebt. 27. 55-9; cf. 
51. 2, note. 

13. (8vdBor0r): this, the early Ptolemaic expression for 2 obols, is written out in 
P. Petrie Il. 44. 25 and the London Bilingual papyrus of Philopator’s reign (Pad. Soc. 
t. 143)). 

18. yénros: if this is a genitive, we must suppose the existence of a deity called ‘the 
Wizard’; if a nominative (of an unknown form), it is a very curious epithet to apply to 
a priest. 

26. (ek Tov IIroA epaiov: sc. kAnpov ; cf. 58. 14 and 18, and 117. 8, note. It is probable 
that this KAjpos was Baordxds like those called BacwAckol in 85. 13 and 101. 5, and really 
formed part of the Baotdcxy ya (cf. 1. 3 above), having returned to the possession of the 
State either at the death of the original holder (cf. 81, introd.) or for some other reason. 
The name of the original holder continued, however, to be attached to it, as was still the 
case even in Roman times; cf. P. Oxy. 483. 5, note, and 118. 2, note. This view of the 
KAjpor Baorixoi also suits 89, 100, and. 119, where the State apparently receives a rent 
upon such holdings, and is confirmed by 75, which refers to the sale by government 
officials of part of the @iogévou KAjpos, though a difficulty arises in connexion with 99 ; 
cf. 99. 8, note, In 112. 9, however, where an impost upon yAepa is apparently found, the 
land seems to be really cleruchic, and the same may be true of the «Ajpoe in 52, though 


the Baoidixot KkAnpor are in any case to be explained as land which had reverted to State 

33. The sign for 4, here applied to an artaba, instead of being angular is semicircular 
and identical with that employed at this period for 4 obol; cf. notes on 53. 20 and 119. 17. 


Mummy A 9g. Breadth 11 cm. B.C. 246. 

Another letter from Demophon to Ptolemaeus, dated in the last year of 
the reign of Philadelphus, and enclosing a list of persons at Tholthis and 
Mouchinaruo (in the Oxyrhynchite nome), who are for the most part rated at 
1 drachma 4 obols on an aroura; cf. introd. to 52 and 180. 

Anpopaly IIrodcuator yalf\pev. anéorad- 

‘Kd ool. 70 mpocdyyeApa THs mpwTns JSexnpépov 

Tod Advp: meipo ovv doparas Sueyyvav ws Tpos oe 

TOD Ol ylov ecopévov. €ppwao. (€rovs) AO ‘Abdp ts. 

Oa[rOis:| Oeddmpos Kaddtxpdrous ex THs mapepévns (apovpas) en’ (dpax- 


pal) n (TpidBodov) (TéTaprov), 

Tlerejjois mouunv Kal Ilavas €atomdAns (dpovpas) yLn’ (Spaxpat) ¢ 

‘Appidois IIavjows kat [ldois Teadros (dpovpas) y (Spaxpal) «€, 

Tlavns PiBios & (rpi@Borov), ILaciapots 5’n’ (dvdBoro), 

“Npos Olparos (dpotdpas) 6 (Spaxpal) 6,  (dpovpa) 55’ (Spaxpat) Kd 
(dv6Boror) (jpt@BérL0r). 

10 €K ToD . [ 

ex Tod Kudpéous . | 
Heer 2 PLOV) Opie. 6| 
ITevvenors gu(dakirns) apdx(ov) & [(rprdBorov ?).Jap...€.{.\eAgol........- 
apdk(ov) & (rpidBodov), / apdx(ov) ad’ (Spaxpai ?) [B (tp@Bodrov) x]opr(ov) 
L (Spaxpn) a, / (dpaxpai) y |(tpidBoror). 
ék tod ‘AmoAdwviov ’Ovdpyns |....|. |. |7/.]. apov. |. Kal 


Evvopos ek Movxwapuve (apdk(ov) y) (Spaxpat) «. 
20 Xeodis ‘Apevddrov 28’ (Spaypi) (a, (6Bords ?) ((ptwBérrov), “Q]pos “pov 
Movxwapve L (mevt@Borov), Ieropxios Ierocetpios 
(Mov]xi{vjapua apdk(ov) 26° (dpaxpy) ‘a (6BorOs ?) (jpt@BEdAL0v), 
/ &pax(ou) (dpovpat) € (Spaxpal) 1 (Sv0Bodrou). / THs Kepuns apax(ov) 
(Spaxpat) re (dBorés) (HutwBEdov), xopTov BL (Spaxpat) € (jpiwBedwor), 
J (6paxpat) pb (dvoBoror). 

5. kaddixparous added above the line. 24. The sign for dpayuai was inserted 
after / was written. 

‘Demophon to Ptolemaeus, greeting. I have sent you the report of the first ten days 
of Athur. Do you therefore endeavour to obtain good security, knowing that you will be 
held accountable. Good-bye. The 39th year, Athur 16. At Tholthis: Theodorus son of 
Callicrates on 534 arourae of the concessional (?) land 8 drachmae 33 obols,’ &c. 

3. Cf. 52. 9, note. 

4. The year being the 39th must be the ‘revenue’ not the ‘ regnal’ year (cf. App. ii). 
Athur 16 of Philadelphus’ 39th regnal year would almost certainly fall within his 4oth revenue 
year, which he did not live to enter ; cf. p. 245. 

5. Ths mapeperns: cf. P. Oxy. 713. 25 mepi dé Heevyd ex ris Opacvpdyov mapemmevns. AS 
58 also refers to the Oxyrhynchite nome the same land is probably meant, and mapetpevn in 
P, Oxy. 713 is then a survival from Ptolemaic times like the names of the xAjpo ; but the 
precise sense of the term is obscure. 

10, Perhaps ék rod I rodenaiov ; cf, 180, where Urodepaiov precedes Kudpéous (1. 14). 

17. The figures are restored from the total in ]. 24; cf. note ad doc. 

19. dpax(ov) y| is restored from the number of drachmae, on the assumption that the 
rate is the usual one of 1 dr. 4 ob. on the aroura. But if 3 arourae is correct here, the items 
making up the number 5 in |. 23 will be complete, and therefore ’Ovdpyns and Evvopos must 
be partners. 

20. The symbol for 4 aroura here and elsewhere in this papyrus is a half-circle like 
that representing $ obol; cf. notes on 52. 33 and 119. 17. 

23-4. The amounts of land given in ll. 9, 17, and 23 add up correctly to the total of 
228 arourae. A half-aroura of xépros also occurs in |. 17, leaving only 2 arourae of xépros 
to be accounted for between Il. 9 and 14. This indicates that the loss between Il. 9 and 10, 
if any, is very small. 


Mummy A (probably A 9). 25 x 492 CM. About B.c. 245. 

An undated letter from Demophon to Ptolemaeus (cf. 51, introd.) on private 
matters. The first part of it gives some interesting instructions about the 


provision of musicians for a festival at Demophon’s house; then follow 
messages about a kid (ll. 17-9), a fugitive slave (Il. 20-3), and various articles 
wanted by the writer (Il. 23-8), with a postscript concerning the mode of 
sending them (Il. 30-2). 

Anpopaov IIroXe- TeldTaTov. Kopicar O€ 
» 3 
palo. xalpew. azd[o- kal Tov €pigpov mapa Apic- 
c ~ 5] , 4 ? ¢ ~ 
TeELAOV Tivy EK Trav- tiwvos Kal méurwpov piv. 
\ P. > > \ A ~ \ ’ ? 
TOs Tpémov Tov av- 20 Kal TO c@pa Oe ef ouvel- 
5 Anti Iletwtv exov7\a Angas mapddos |] av7o]] 
tovs Te Ppvytious av- Seupde? brws av7ro r- 
Alods Kal rods owrrovs, Kl al akoplone Hiv. amoo- 
éav TL O€nt avnrOoaL TelAov O€ Apiy Kal TU- 
66s, mapa dé 7pul@|y Kop- 25 pods daouvs av Ovynt Kai 
10 is. amooTedov de 7[pliv Képapov Kalilyov Kai Ad- 
kal ZnvoBiov ov pada- Xava mavTjodamra Kal 
Koy €xovTa TUpTavoyv Kal €av ovov TL EXNL|S., 
KvpBara Kal Kpétada, xpel- EpPp|@oo. | 
~~ ’ ~ 2 _ 
a ydp é€oTt Tals yuvaiElv mpos 30 €uBadrod dé avTa Kal du- 
si - , , \ , A ~ 
15 7Hv Ovoiav' éxéTw Oe Aakiras ot cuvdiakop.od- 
Kal iwatiopov ws ao- ow [[a]] 76 mAoiojv.| 

On the verso 
II roAcpaior. 

- 10. A Of amocretAoy corr. from »v. 

‘Demophon to Ptolemaeus, greeting. Make every effort to send me the flute-player 
Petoiis with both the Phrygian flutes and the rest; and if any expense is necessary, pay it, 
and you shall recover it from me. Send me also Zenobius the effeminate with a drum and 
cymbals and castanets, for he is wanted by the women for the sacrifice; and let him wear 
as fine clothes as possible. Get the kid also from Aristion and send it to me; and if you 
have arrested the slave, deliver him to Semphtheus to bring to me. Send me as many 
cheeses as you can, a new jar, vegetables of all kinds, and some delicacies if you have any. 
Good-bye. Put them on board with the guards who will assist in bringing the boat. 
(Addressed) To Ptolemaeus.’ 

II. padaxés may be merely a nickname, but probably refers to the style of Zenobius’ 
dancing. Smyly well compares Plautus, JZ/. 668 Tum ad saltandum non cinaedus malacus 
aequest atque ego. 

26. xale\dy: or perhaps kevdv. xepayoy can also have a collective sense, ‘ earthenware.’ 


Mummy A (probably A 9). 9:3 X 12cm. B.C. 250 (249). 

A short letter from Scythes, a superior official, to Ptolemaeus (cf. 51, introd.), 
ordering him to come to Talao, a village in the Oxyrhynchite nome (ch P. Oxy 
265. 15), with a shepherd who was to give evidence. The writing is across the 

SKvOns [rorcpaiwot yatpev. 
mapayevod es Tadawv dn 
bY \ \ , X dy 2 
adyov Kal Tov Troiméva Tov €dEy- 
Eovra mepl av pot eimas. €ay O€ 
5 Bpad’repov mounts cavTov Bda- 
Gane x 2 , f 
wes, [ol0 yap cxoAd(@ peévery mAciova 

Xp\dvor. | €ppwao. (€rous) Ae Xolay s. 

On the verso 
IT rod epaiot. 

‘Scythes to Ptolemaeus, greeting. Come to Talao at once, and bring with you the 
shepherd in order that he may give evidence in the matter about which you told me. If 
you are remiss you will injure yourself, for I have no leisure to remain longer. Good- 
bye. The 35th year, Choiak 6. (Addressed) To Ptolemaeus.’ 

Mummy A 9. 12:1 X 4:6 cm. B.C. 249 (248). 

A peremptory note to Ptolemaeus from Patron, perhaps the apxupvdakirns 
mentioned in 34.1 and 78. 9-10, ordering him not to molest a certain Nicostratus ; 
cf. 59. 9-12 and introd. to 51. 

ITdérpwv IIroXe- 
[pallor yaipev.  mapa- 
yevopevos mpos 

jas "Thov €pn elo- 

5 mpaooev oe Niko- 


atpatov ex KoBa 
(Spaxpas) B. od ovy ph év- 
xAee [a vrov. [lou] 
7 lines erased. 
Eppwao. (€rovs) A¢ 
10 Paar v¢. 

On the verso 

IT rodepaior. 

‘Patron to Ptolemaeus, greeting. lon has come to me and said that you were 
exacting 2 drachmae from Nicostratus of Koba. Do not molest him. Good-bye. The 
37th year, Phaophi 17. (Addressed) To Ptolemaeus.’ 

6. Ké8a was in the Keizns rémos (cf. p. 8); but Nicostratus must have been for the 
time being in the Oxyrhynchite nome, since he had come within reach of Ptolemacus. 
Whether this Ké8a is identical with the village called Kéya in the Roman and Byzantine 
periods (p. 8, P. Oxy. 142 and 150) is doubtful. 

g-10. These two lines are over the erasure. 

57. Letter or Dionysoporus(?) to ProLeMAEUvs. 

Mummy A 8. 7-7 X 32-2 cm. BoCey 247 

A letter to Ptolemaeus ordering a person who had brought the writer a 
petition to be sent to him. The writer’s name is doubtful, but is perhaps 
Dionysodorus, as in 58. The writing is across the fibres. 

Aljolvujaddwpos II )z\o|Nepaior yxalpev. as dv rAEBnis Tiv emlaT[o A Hy 
mpos juas (Anun|rpiov tov Kopicav’ jpiv Kar’ Evaydpov evrevéiv eis 
Opeias mapel... .]y. 
Eppwoo. (€rous) Ayn ITavyjpov |.] 

On the verso Ps 

5 IT7[o|Acpaior. 
‘Dionysodorus to Ptolemaeus, greeting. As soon as you receive this letter send to me 

Demetrius who brought me a petition against Evagoras to the... of Alexandria. Good- 
bye. The 38th year, Panemus. . (Addressed) To Ptolemaeus.’ 


3. There is not room for rape porn v. 

4. Panemus at this period probably coincided approximately with Epeiph (cf. App. 1), 
in which month the numbers of Philadelphus’ regnal years were still one in arrear of those 
of the revenue years; cf. 80. 13-4, note. Since 57 is dated by the Macedonian calendar, 
Panemus-Epeiph would be expected to fall within the 38th regnal rather than the 38th 
revenue year; cf. p. 367. But it is difficult to refer Panemus-Epeiph to the 39th revenue 
year, for Philadelphus was almost certainly dead before that date; cf. p. 364. 

58. LeEettTer or Dionysoporus To PTOLEMAEUS. 

Mummy A 9. 19-5 X 7:5 ci. B.C. 245-4 (244-3). 

A letter to Ptolemaeus from Dionysodorus, asking for an advance of 
8 drachmae. If this Dionysodorus was also the writer of 57, he was the official 
superior of Ptolemaeus. 

Atovva|6dw\pos IIroXe- 
‘pallor xaipev. ws av 
T|Hlv €mio|roAjy A&Bnts 
dos Te{Aléor@t TL Tapa 
5 Aodorov rob .{[.JKA.. 
dwrov ap ov dedé- 
yevkas dpyupiov (dpaxpas) n, Tod- 
To 6€ got mpocdé~opat. 
avadédexTat yap 
10 Hpuly aropeTpHoely 
airov. pr) ovv a&dAws 
Eppwalo. (€rous)] y [..... 

7. apyupwov added above the line. 

‘Dionysodorus to Ptolemaeus, greeting. As soon as you receive this letter give Telestus 
the agent of Diodotus son of... 8 drachmae of silver out of what you have collected, and 
for this sum IJ will be responsible (?) to you; for he has undertaken to measure us out 
some corn. So do not neglect this. Good-bye. The 3rd year...’ 

8. mpoodeoua: cf. P. Petrie III. 64 (4). 6 (e&edearo) and 81 (4). 1. 



Mummy A 9. 17:2X 8-8cm. About B.c. 245. 

A letter from Zenodorus to Ptolemaeus, directing him to send up a woman 
who had been found in the illicit possession of a quantity of oil, and adding 
a sharp warning to Ptolemaeus himself. A Zenodorus is known from an un- 
published Hibeh papyrus to have been oeconomus of one of the toparchies of 
the Oxyrhynchite nome at this period, and he is probably to be identified with 
the writer of this and the following letter ; cf. also 60 and 124-7, 

Znvidwpos IItoXcpaton 

xalpev. as dv AaBnIs 

X ? \ 97 

THY EmlaToANY a7roc- 

TeLAOv TpoOS Mas peTa 
5 gudakni[s, THY mapado- 

Oeiody co Exovcay 76 

kNEmtov EXaLov 

4 ‘ , 

Kat Tov mapaddvTa co 

> v4 A , X 

amoaTetNoly? K\at €L 42) 
10 mavoel k\a|KoTTOa@y 

€v TH K@pnit] peTape- 

Anlojet ool. 

Eppwoo. (€rovs) [.| “Eveip t. 
On the verso 


‘Zenodorus to Ptolemaeus, greeting. As soon as you receive this letter, send to us 
under guard the woman who was delivered to you with the contraband oil in her possession, 
and send also the person who delivered her to you; and if you do not stop your malpractices 
in the village you will repent it. Good-bye. The .. year, Epeiph 10. (Addressed) To 

7. kdemov: this adjective is unknown, but is a much more satisfactory reading here 
than «ddémov, The same word is no doubt to be recognized in Rev. Laws lv. 20 éd» 
8€.. . BoltAlovrar Cyreiv dpe vou €d\acov mapa ricey brdpyew kA ér'ov, which suits the sense 
far better than xd pm\yov. On the smuggling of oil cf. also P. Tebt. 38 and 39. 



Mummy A 9. 12:37 cm. About B.c. 245. 

Another order from Zenodorus to Ptolemaeus (cf. 59) for the arrest of a 
man named Ctesicles if he failed to make a payment within a certain period. 

Znvodwpos IIrodcpator 
xaipery. €dp pt) arroc- 
retAne KrnoikAns 
eis Yuvdpuy mpd Exrns 

5 wpas THe LO (Spaxpas) Kk 
admoaTetkov avTov mpos 
pas pera gdivjAa- 
Khs On, Kal Omrws 
py} GdAwS Troijoets. 

10 Ep[pwao. (Tous). . 

On the verso 

6. avrov added above the line. 

‘Zenodorus to Ptolemaeus, greeting. If Ctesicles does not send 20 drachmae to 
Sinaru before the sixth hour on the roth, send him to me under guard at once, without 
fail. Good-bye. The ..year... (Addressed) To Ptolemaeus.’ 


Mummy A 9. 13:1 X 9-7 cm. B.C. 245 (244). 

An order to Ptolemaeus to produce a number of persons before Ammonius, 
a superior official. The name of the writer is lost, but was perhaps Zenodorus ; 
the hand is similar to that of 59, but not certainly identical with it. 

etiapecnack.o dot | IT{rolAcpatol 

r23. 7 4 
[emiaTo\Ajy KaTaoTN TOV 


s av rAaBnis THY 


PeMaeatee s toe os | mpos ‘Appdrvioy 
lle Boor aac aceemenn se ].- xe.) ITeroctpw 
SevbxXios Kai Terocipw ITaot- 
motos, Apvodgiv Ilavinzos, 
Apvalrnv| tov rAagov. 
Eplpwco. (érovs) B Ilayavs tc. 
‘, Ptolemaeus, greeting. As soon as you receive this letter produce . . . before 

Ammonius ...son of .. ., Petosiris son of Senuchis, Petosiris son of Pasipos, Harnouphis 
son of Paues, and Haruotes the stonemason. Good-bye. The 2nd year, Pachon 16.’ 

4. A place-name may have stood in the lacuna either here or in 1. 5; cf. 62. 13-5. 


Mummy A 9. 18-4 x8 cm. B.C. 245 (244). 

A letter from Philippus, whose official status does not appear, to Ptolemaeus, 
directing him to bring before Philippus the accuser in a case of robbery. 

Pirimmos II7oXe- 
faiwt xaipey. [ 
Kakovpyov Tov 7{7)V 

la 7 
A€lav TolnoavTa 

émikaAvAer Tvas 


Apvovguos, bv cur- 
apxXlyepel TOL ev 
Oarre trapad/o}b- 

10 vai got. as av r&Bnis 
TH ypdppara 
AaBav avtiv Td 
TaXOS aTroKaTa- 
‘oT|noov mpos mmas 

15 (€v] “Oguptyyev m[d)Afele, 
[kal Glrals] pa) dAdAwS ~oTau. 

Eppwoo. (érovs) B atv x. 

208 WI BET “PAY 

On the verso 

‘Philippus to Ptolemaeus, greeting. The criminal who did the pillage is accused 
by Tnas son of Harnouphis, whom I have instructed the chief priest at Tholthis to hand 
over to you. As soon as you receive this letter take him at once and produce him before 
me at the city of Oxyrhynchus; and be careful to carry out these directions. Good-bye. 
The 2nd year, Pauni 20. (Addressed) To Ptolemaeus.’ 

2. There would be room for {rév after yatpev, but it is unnecessary. 
8. dpyeyepet: another instance of the insertion of y in this word perhaps occurs in 
P. Petrie III. 53 (p). 2. Cf. 27. 33 and P. Tebt. 63. 7, note. 


Mummy 18. 17:8 x 8 cm. About B.c. 265. 

A letter from Criton asking Plutarchus to settle accounts, in order that 
Criton might meet a demand to pay for some seed which had been sown upon 
a cleruchic holding. It is probable that this Plutarchus is the same person as 
the Plutarchus addressed by Paris in 64, although the two documents were 
obtained from different mummies; for another connecting link is provided by 65, 
which comes from the same mummy (18) as 63, and is also concerned with 
a Paris. Moreover, the three letters deal with similar topics and are undoubtedly 
close together in date. 64 belongs to the 2Ist year of Philadelphus, 
while the dates in the papyri from Mummy 18 range from about the 15th to 
the 28th year of that reign. Criton and Plutarchus recur in 110. 13 and 
17 (cf. 159), and seem to have been minor revenue-officials at or near ‘lepa 
Nijoos, a village in the division of Polemon in the Arsinoite nome ; cf. 63. 19, 
110. 21, 80. 3-4, 81. 16. The position of Paris was probably similar. 

On the verso are parts of 7 much effaced lines, but no signs of an 

7 ares i 8 4 

Kpirev TXovrapxole 

Xalpew. mapayer|o|uer|os 
rx X Ni > oN 

mplo|s pe Nikaos amnerer 

THY TijY TOO oTéeppa- 

- ~ ’ , 

Tols ov edn €uBeBAnkeE- 

vale eis tov II pwraydopov 

K|A|npov (€7@v) y (aprdBas) Ay, 



[ec] O€ pr Epn Kabegew 
Tov xopTov pov Tov ev 
10 Tat medio. ef ody ob- 
Tws modTevobucba 
éxot. od ovv d16pbacat 
avrois 76 Alolimrov 0 mpoo- 
15 ogeiAes pot. joav o€ 
(Spaypat) oB- tovray ddede 
(aptaBa@y ?) pw Tiny Ke (reTrpbBodor) 

kat |. ..|Jy 0 [€AjaBov ma- 

pk cod dare Ocvddpor k....[...]. 5 pf ‘Tepas Nioou ((dpaxpas) 4, 
20 / (Spaxpai) A (rerpeBodrov), (Aoumdv) wa (dvdBoro1), 

AaBov rapa Tipapxou 

. : . . . . . . ° ° e 

IQ. woTe,. || .s added above the line. 

‘Criton to Plutarchus, greeting. Nicaeus has come to me demanding the price of the 
seed which he said he had ordered for the holding of Protagoras during three years, namely 
33 artabae, otherwise he said he should lay claim to my hay in the fields. If we are going to 
hold such relations it will indeed be well. Do you therefore settle with them the remainder 
owing from you to me. The sum was 72 drachmae; deduct from this the price of 40 
artabae, 26 drachmae 4 obols, and for... which I received from you for Theodorus... at 
Hiera Nesus, 4 drachmae, total 30 drachmae 4 obols, remainder 41 drachmae 2 obols. 
Take from Timarchus...’ 

5-7. The meaning of éu8e8dyxéva here is not quite clear. If it be ‘imposed upon,’ as 
e.g. in P. Tebt. 37. 7 €uBeBrjoOa (epya) cis tH» ynv, Nicaeus must be supposed to be an 
official who first ordered the loan of seed and then himself advanced it on behalf of Criton, 
This seems more likely than that éu8dddew is used literally of sowing, for which oveipet 
would be the word expected. The land in question may have been one of the Paowdcxot 
kAjpot, as in 85, 12-3; but loans or presents of seeds were also made to cleruchs, 
E77 Oi. 

10-3. We suppose dddnAos to refer to Criton and Nicaeus, and xaos dy Exo to be 
ironical. The construction of roA:revecOa with a dative is unusual. 

17. The lowness of the price (4 obols per artaba) shows that the grain was of some 
inferior kind, very likely olyra. An artaba of olyra was worth 2 artaba of wheat (85. 14- 
5, note), of which the normal value was 2 drachmae (84 a. 8-9, note). 

18. Perhaps [(dpraBav)| y, but 6 is then unsatisfactory; a neuter antecedent would 
be more appropriate. The stroke which we have considered to be the top of a y may be 
a mark of abbreviation, The following letter is rather more like o than o, but ds cannot 
be read, 



21. There are some blurred ink marks immediately in front of XaB8ev, but they are 
outside the line and probably accidental. They might, however, be taken to represent an 
inserted kat. ; 

64. LeEtTer oF Paris TO PLUTARCHUS. 

Mummy 97. Breadth 7-3 cm. B.C. 264 (263). 

A letter from Paris asking for an advance of 60 drachmae on account of 
a large amount of olyra which was due to him from Plutarchus. The mutilation 
of the latter part of the letter has obscured some of the details of the proposed 
transaction. The writer is probably identical with the Paris mentioned in 65, 
and his correspondent with the Plutarchus to whom 68 is addressed ; cf. 63, 

ITdpis IIdov7apxor Adv por tas [E (Spaxpas) 
xaipev. yéeypapey got 1s Koll) TU Bo eae 
‘Avrimarpos peTpi- Thv afm... | 

[olaé plot) dAvpay (dpraBas) Avy ds kataBadel To.... |. 

5 [@v| det ole AaBety (apraBas) ov Bre Soe el osca) oel\] One ena 
TO 6 Aowrov enol pe- . as momoet.] Xpr O€ Kal 
Tpioa. xpelav ovy 20 [ypa|pev pot mep|t @v av xpeEl- 
éx@ (dpaypar) €, Kaos av éxns. (| Eppwco. 

dv ovv troinoas dovs (érous) ka H[a..... 

10 Wevopodte Tat azrod:- 

(Odv7t cot Tijv emtaTo- A fragment 

[Aqy een 

7 jroo . [ 
Tov olTov améar|el- 25 eel 
On the verso 
13. 7 Of ovroy corr. ? 22. xa corr. from Ǥ or vice versa. 

‘Paris to Plutarchus, greeting. Antipater has written to you to measure out to me 
1450 artabae of olyra, of which you ought to take 250 artabae and to measure out the rest 
tome. Now 1 am in want of 60 drachmae ; you will therefore do well to give Psenomous, 


the carrier of this letter, ... Send me the 60 drachmae and on the 2nd I will bring 
-.. tes... who will pay... And you must write to me about anything which you 
require. Good-bye. The 2rst year, Pauni (?). (Addressed) To Plutarchus.’ 

10. There is a break in the papyrus below I. 10, and several lines may be lost between 
I]. 12 and 13. Perhaps ll. 23-5 come in here. 

13. The + of oiroy is very doubtful; the letters rov ovro and Xov with part of the p of 
#ot in the next line are on a separate fragment, and its position is not quite certain. 

16, tv is the termination of a personal name, e. g. ‘Apuerny. 


Mummy 18. 34:2 x 5-8 cm. About B.c. 265. 

The purpose of this letter, the commencement of which is lost, was to 
secure the immediate delivery to Paris (cf. 64) of 80 artabae of aracus, in part- 
payment of a debt of 100 artabae of wheat. The writer proposed to obtain 
the remainder by purchase from the State. His correspondent, who is desired 
to pay over the aracus, was perhaps Plutarchus, the recipient of 63-4; cf. introd. 
to 63. 

améoTEiha pods oe [ee santa nina 
dros av mapayevé- ‘HeTpylonis Tob 
Hevos ovvorTa- [dpdjkov Tas m (aptéBas ?) 
Onis Idpire 20 (ITd\pitt, ef dé py 

5 [tlva perpyonis ‘He|TpHoerar ple 
avTa. Tas m (apTaBas) [T@|t Opkwl Evoyxov 
ToD adpdKov, éyw [ety]ae Kal elompdo- 
yap épxov cvyyé- [cea|Oar ris (aprdBns) (Spaypds) 6. 
Yeap perpi- 25 [Oer]opev ody ey Sn- 

10 [alae THe TeTpa- [Holofov Tov dowdy 
[d]c mupav (dpréBas) p. [ouv|ayopdoa ot- 
[emlet odv ovK ée€é- [Tov iva pn[Oely 
[ora\t cor onpeplov [els €]ue vorepyone. 
[meT]pew Kaas 30 Eppwco. 

15 [av| moijoas talpa- (Erous) . .) Aédp 6. 
[ye]yopevos els af. . 

11. The numeral p corr.? 18. v of rov corr. from », 

212 Jeb st Ne (AUG ees 

‘T have sent to you so that you may go and meet Paris in order to measure out to him 
the 80 artabae of aracus; for I have engaged under oath to measure out on the 4th 100 
artabae of wheat. So since you will not be able to measure it to-day, you will do well to 
go to...on the 5th to measure out to Paris the 80 artabae of aracus. If this is not done 
I shall be liable to the consequences of my oath and shall be mulcted of 4 drachmae per 
artaba. JI wish to purchase the remainder of the corn from the State, in order that there 
may be no arrears against me. Good-bye. The year, Athur 4.’ 

8. A fragmentary specimen of such an oath is P. Petrie III. 56 (a). 

10. tH Terpddu: i.e. the day on which this letter was written; cf. 1. 31. 

21 sqq. The oblique construction is probably a reminiscence of the actual contract, 
from which this sentence is a more or less exact quotation. Above the first few letters of 
], 22 are some thin strokes which resemble |ore and may represent an insertion. 


Mumnyy to. II xX 32:8cm. B.C, 228 (224). 

The following documents (66-70 (d)), with 160-3, belong to the corre- 
spondence of Clitarchus, who, as is shown by their contents as well as by the 
endorsement on 66, was a government banker, his district being the Kwirns rézos. 
They belong to the reign of Euergetes and are close together in date, the only 
years mentioned being the 18th and 19th. 

The present text consists of a letter from Protarchus informing Clitarchus 
that he had undertaken the collection of the tax of 35 and 535, an impost 
probably connected with the éyxvxAvoy or tax on sales and mortgages of real 
estate (cf. note on |. 1), and requesting Clitarchus to collect the dues on his 
account. The writing is across the fibres of the papyrus. 

IIpérapyos Kvewrépyor xalpev. egleAjpapev tiv p kal o mapa Tov 
THY SOw@pEdy 
mpaypharevopévwv. emel ovv mimte [ool] é€v Tols KaT& o& Tools ELKOOTH, 
Kad@s dy Trol- 
joas ovvrdgas Tois mapk ood mpooddfylevew Kabdre viv Kat ‘AckAn- 
/, 4 
middns yeypader, 
as &| dv mapayévopat amd rhs mal.|.[...... | ro} yxadkod cuvradyjow 
rn \ é \ o~ , ~ ¢ fee 
5 pry Oa Kevns evxaptornoat Apliv. ] 

€ppwoo. (Tous) 10 Ilaxavs 10. 


On the verso 

and hand zpame¢irnt Kai- 
Tov (1st hand) Knrerépxau. 

* Protarchus to Clitarchus, greeting. I have contracted for the one per cent. and half 
per cent. with the managers of the dwped. Since therefore the 5 per cent. tax is paid to you 
in your district, you would do well to order your agents to collect the other taxes too, 
as Asclepiades also has written to you; and so soon as | arrive from the delivery (?) of the 
copper I will have a conversation with you, so that you shall not oblige me to no purpose. 
Good-bye. The 19th year, Pachon 14. (Addressed) To Clitarchus, banker of the Koite 

1-2. The character of this tax of 14 per cent. and its relation to the dwped and the 
elxoorn are not quite clear. 7v dwpedv here might be interpreted as ryv ev Swpea yay, as 
e.g. in P. Petrie II. 39(g). 14 taper ev rie Swpeae xdpros ixavds, P. Magd. 28 rijs Xpuceppov 
dwpeas. As Rev. Laws show (xxxvi. 15, xliii. 11, xliv. 3), large tracts of land were held 
év Swped, chiefly perhaps by court favourites, and the holders seem to have had special 
treatment in respect of taxation. The eixoory in |. 2 might then be compared with that in 
P. Petrie II. 11 (2). 4, a 5 per cent. tax on the rent of an oikémedov, while the 14 per cent. 
would be some similar impost of which the present is the first mention. 

But de@ped may have another sense which is more suitable to the context in 66. In 
the first place mpaypareveoOa: is the word commonly used at this period for the farmers of 
a tax. Secondly, in the London Bilingual papyrus of the 13th year of Philopator (Proceed. 
Soc. Bibl. Arch. xxiii. p. 301, Pal. Soc. I. 143), appended to a demotic contract of sale is 
a banker’s receipt in Greek, in which there appears, coupled with 8 drachmae 21 obols for 
€yxukduov, a payment of 3 obols for dwpea. Now the commonest form of exoorn was the 
eyxvxdwov (cf. 70 a); and if this be the eixoory in 66. 2 there will be here the same collocation 
Of dwped and éyxixdioy as in the London text. Moreover, the 14 per cent. of 1. 1 recalls the 
€£nxooTn and éxaroorn of the Zois papyrus which were paid on the occasion of a sale through 
the government of land given in security for a tax; cf. the extra charges amounting to 
a5 X 2 (ra kabnxovra réAn Suwa), added to the spdorpor in P, Amh. 31,0f B.c. 112. It thus seems 
possible to find a link between the 14 per cent., the dwpea, and the 5 per cent. by means of 
the supposition that they were all three connected with sales. Another passage in which 
dwped probably signifies a tax is P. Petrie III. 53 (s) deixapev d€ kai ro ypadetoy tov Aiyurtiov 
ovyypapar, 76 b€ dd [rlovrwy mpdrepov meinroy Sidévar rap’ adrod Tois €xovor THv Swpedv. ‘The 
ypapeiov, a tax paid for drawing up contracts (?), is here remitted, and the proceeds previously 
derived from it are transferred to the ‘holders of the dwped.’ eyovar at first sight suggests 
land-holders rather than tax-farmers; but it is very difficult to see what the former could 
have to do with the ypadeiov, and the view that ¢yovres tiv Swpedy here means much the same 
AS mpayparevpevor thy Swpeay in 66 is supported by P. Oxy. 44.22, where the impost ypadetov 
is coupled with ¢ykixdwov, with which, as we have seen above, the depead was closely 
connected. We should therefore explain the p’ cai o’ as a percentage upon sales, being an 
addition to the ordinary eikoorn and resembling the dwped, within which it may even have been 

With regard to the 12 per eent. and the analogous percentages of the P. Zois, it is 
singular that in P. Petrie III. 57 (4), where some land is sold by the government under 
conditions similar to those in P. Zois, the tax paid is the ordinary éeyxt’xAvov of 5 per cent. 
J. C. Naber, Archiv, I. p. 90, explains the difference in the rate as a remission. That is no 

214 TITRE TISIAA Tey acl 

doubt possible, and in the absence of further evidence it is difficult to find a better theory. 
But the idea of lightening the burden of taxation does not seem to have played much 
part in the policy of the Ptolemies; it is possible that, so far from representing a remission, 
the percentages in the Zois papyrus may mark an augmentation, the z$5 and gj> rising 
to 2, and ;4,, and perhaps subsequently to the 4 of P. Amh. 31. An analogy for such 
an increase is provided by the history of the éyxvxdior, the rate of which was doubled 
towards the end of the second century B.c. But the absence of the éyxt«dcov in P. Zois 
then remains unexplained. : 

3, Asclepiades is probably identical with the writer of 67-9. 
4. Perhaps zalp|a[Sécews| or malp|a[Soxqs|, but the reference is obscure. The fourth 

letter, if not a, might be e.g. y, 7, or tr, ouvhadnow x.t.A, Means that Protarchus was prepared 
to give a guid pro quo. 


Mummy to. 32-8 x 8-6 cm. B.C. 225.422): 

This papyrus and 67 are letters to the banker Clitarchus (cf. 66, introd.), offi- 
cially authorizing him to pay different sums to certain weavers at Ayxup@v 7dAus and 
XouBvetpis in the Heracleopolite nome for a variety of fabrics manufactured on 
behalf of the government. As Rev. Laws Ixxxvii sqq. (cf. Wilcken, Osz. I. 
pp. 267-9) and P. Tebt. 5. 63-4, 238 sqq. combine to show, the weaving industry 
was, at any rate in its more important branches, a government monopoly. The 
persons actually employed in it had of course to be paid for their work, and the scale 
of prices found here may be compared with those fixed in Rev. Laws xlvi. 18-20 
for the production of the various kinds of oil; cf. the regulation of the price 
of ovpia in 51. 5-6 (note on 1. 3), and P. Tebt. 5. 248 sqq., where it is forbidden 
to make the cloth-weavers, byssus-workers, and robe-weavers work dwpeav poe 
picdGv tpepevov. The finer processes of manufacture seem to have been 
centred in the temples; but it is not at all likely that the whole weaving 
industry was under their control (P. Tebt. 5. 63, note), and there is no hint 
either in 67-8 or 51 that priests were in any way concerned. The formula of 
the two authorizations closely resembles that found in P. Petrie III. 87 (a) verso, 
(0), and 89. Asclepiades, the official by whom they were sent, and who appends 
his signature in 67. 28, was probably the local olxovdwos, the principal revenue 
official of the nome, or his avrvypapeds; cf. the frequent mentions of the olxovopos 
in the section of the Rev. Laws which concerns the d0ovinpd, 1xxxvii. sqq. 
Asclepiades’ order to Clitarchus in 69 to bring an account is quite in keeping 
with such a position. 

The names of the various fabrics are usually abbreviated both in 67 and 68, 
and are difficult to identify. They are all classed as 6@0ma, and are also in- 



cluded under an abbreviation which may be either wo( ) or of ). On the 
whole we think ic(rot) ‘ webs’ more probable than ou(védves), since tarot also occur 
in Rev. Laws xciv. 2 and 5, where a tords is rated at 25 drachmae, though that 
passage is too mutilated to be conclusive; cf. also Ps. Aristeas ed. Schmidt, 
p. 69. 16 Bucciver dOoviwy iorovs Exatdv. Other abbreviations are py( ), mp(_ ), 
Bvo( ), and ivd(ria?), but it is doubtful, except in the case of zp({_ ), what is 
the correct order of the letters. copia (67. 14, in other places abbreviated copwr) 
may be connected with copds and denote a kind of cloth used for burials. 

Ackdrln|middns Keita pyar 
x[aliperv. [dds] and tev m- 
mrovTe@|y ells TO 16 (E7Os) 
tois ev Ayxupav Tré)et 

5 (droyeypappévors Dpaerats 
but . . ews TOO map Aroddoviov - 
kat Ileretpovov tov Te- 
5 benecec Tlomoy pappatéws 


[kal ....] Kopoypapparéws 
[els Tipals dOoviwy Tav 


ovyTed ljovpévov eis TO | Ba- 
oNKjov pn( ) ka me) ¢ 7 bo(rol?) kn, 
(Spaypas) TK (rerpdBorov), Buol ) ¢ §e (dvoBdrovs), 
copwiwy ¢ vs, / to(rol) pp 
15 (Spaxpai) vpn, Kal adda(yijs) 16, 7 véB, 

Kal otpBodrov molnoat mpos 
abtots. %ppwco. (érovs) 6 ‘Abdp xB. 
yeypappévorv’ Ooropodre 

20 ITerocipwos pn ) y mp ) a, 7% 4, 
(Opaypas) ps (reTpdBorov), Bvol ) a O (dvoBbrovs), copwi(ov) a 7, 
J, bo{rol) 5 (Spaxpal) £6, adr(alys)] B, / és. 
Appnver Ficditos acavTos, 
ITerevotre Idairos, 

25 Teds Adeupéws, Ieroctpe 
Apx7nBios, ‘Apevvet 
NexOootpios, Tecdpe [..... 


and hand ‘AckAnmddn[s Krerap- 

xo. xalfpely. xplnpa- 

30 Tloov xaAk{oli TeT|pa- 
koatas é€nkovTa dvio 

Kaddre ylélyplalmrae | 


| } 
[seta Bov. 16 5 [ete cate ae 
an yudTov ¢ [....- : 

‘Asclepiades to Clitarchus, greeting. Give out of the sums paid in for the roth year 
to the weavers at Ancyronpolis below written, through . . ., agent of Apollonius, and 
Petimouthes son of Te..., topogrammateus, and ... komogrammateus, for the prices 
of cloths supplied to the Treasury, namely for 21 me... 7 pr.--, total 28 webs, 
326 drachmae 4 obols, for 7 buo... 65 drachmae 2 obols, for 7 soroia 56 drachmae, 
total 42 webs 448 drachmae, and for agio 14 drachmae, total 462 drachmae; and 
make out a receipt with them. Good-bye. The roth year, Athur 22. To each of the 
following : to Thotomous son of Petosiris for 3 me...and 1 pr..., total 4, 46 drachmae 
4 obols, for 1 buo... 9 drachmae 2 obols, for r soroion 8 drachmae, total 6 webs 64 drachmae, 
and for agio 2 drachmae, total 66. ‘To Harmenis son of Sisois similarly, and to Petenoupis 
son of Pasis, Teos son of Athemmeus, Petosiris son of Harchebis, Amenneus son of 
Nechthosiris, Tesomis son of.... 

‘ Asclepiades to Clitarchus, greeting. Pay 462 drachmae of copper, as above written...’ 

4. "Ayxupav dds: a town on the east bank of the Nile in the Heracleopolite nome, 
possibly Hibeh itself; cf. pp. 9-10. 

7. In 68. 5 the topogrammateus is Petimouthes son of Thotortaeus ; but the 
patronymic here is certainly different, and since the villages are not the same in the two 
papyri and Petimouthes is not an uncommon name, it is unlikely that a single person is 

9. Perhaps rod] kopoypapparéos; cf. 68. 5-6, note. But there would be room for a 
short name like “Qpov. 

10-1. A papyrus belonging to Prof. Gradenwitz, containing a receipt issued by the 
mapadnprrai Snpociov ipariwy for differently coloured cloths, indicates that the government 
control of the supply of such materials continued into the Roman period. 

12-4. The abbreviation yy( ) consists of a » with an » written above (the » being 
square in ], 12 and rounded in 1. 20), mp( ) of a m with a p drawn through it; the 
former possibly stands for pypvypa (cf. note on Il. 34-5), the latter might be connected 
with the mpooxepddaa which occur in Rev. Laws cii. 7. The o of io(roi ?) is written in the 
form of a capital as in the symbol for 200, the « being a long stroke drawn through it. 
In the case of Bvo( ) the three letters are written one above the other, the v being a 
good-sized curve immediately over the 8, and the third letter a small thick mark which 
at |. 21 is slightly elongated, suggesting a 8 or an « rather than an o; in 68. 7 it is 
a mere dot. In J. 21 the curve is slightly turned over and thickened at the left end and 
might be interpreted as ov; but this feature is not noticeable in 1. 13 or 68. 7. Bua, 
i. e. Bva(civey), can certainly not be read. ‘The prices of the different fabrics work out as 
follows :—pn(_) and mp(_) cost 11 dr. 4 ob. each, Bvo( ) 9 dr. 2 ob., and copara 8 dr.; in 
68 the scale is the same and {xd(ria?) also appear, costing 7 dr. apiece. 


15. adda(yjs): the rate is $ obol on the stater, which is identical with that in 68. 9 
and 61. 6, where the word éraddayy is used. The prices are calculated on a silver basis 
(xpds dpytpov), and in making payment in copper (cf. 1. 30) the government allowed a 
small agio. The usual rate of the agio on payments in copper at this period was about 22 
obols on the stater; cf. P. Petrie III. p. 86, where the data are collected (add P. Petrie III. 
67 (a). 2, (4). 14, 117 (¢). 12, 15). The difference is probably to be accounted for by the 
fact that in the present case the government was not receiving, but paying. 

34-5. The numbers suggest that the reference is again to different sorts of cloth and 
that -Bev and -yzdrey may be the termination of two of the words abbreviated in Il. 12 sqq. 
The figures, however, do not help to identify them, since the number 2 does not occur in 
the foregoing list, and so ll. 33~5 cannot be a repetition of it. -yydrwy might possibly be 
pnpvyparev, though.that term means the thread rather than the material woven from it ; cf. 
Hesych. pipvypa, oreipapa 4 exrewdpevor, and pnpvopa, kdraypa 4} ondopa épiov. As for -Baov, 
there is one 8 if not two (cf. note on Il. 12-4) in Bvo( ), but we can find no likely word. 
Line 35 is probably, though not certainly, the conclusion of the document. 


Mummy 10. Breadth 11 cm. About B.c. 228. 

A letter, similar to 67, from Asclepiades to Clitarchus, authorizing payment 
to be made to a number of weavers for cloths of various kinds manufactured by 
them ; cf. 67, introd. The writing is across the fibres of the papyrus, 

[dokrym\ddns Krei[rdlpxor xalipev. 
(Od]s dd tev murrévTov eis 70  . (€70$) 
‘Abdp trois ev XoiPvdrpe sroyey|paypévors 
bpavras dia Atovvoiov rod map ‘Aro[Adolviolv 
5 Kal ITeretpotbov ro} Ooropraiov tomoyp(apparéws) x{al 
k@poypapparéws) eis Tiuas oOoviwy Tav cuvTedovpér[oly 
eis 76 Baoidixdv pn( ) 08 wy (dvoBdrovs), Bol ) Ka pag’; 
copwiwv) wB TAs, ipalriwy) Ka pug,  to{rot) pyvn (dpaxpai) Adu [(dvé- 
emaX(\ayis) wn (48o0r6Os) (réraprov), “ "Adg (TpidBodov) (rérapror), ovp- 
Borov 6 mofncalt 
10 mpos avrovs. amd d& tobtwy trddo(yor) mlotnoas 
av@ ob ypdpe ‘Arodddvios Exew Evdpd{vopa 
Tapa TOV a. . Evo CO ee ar a ae ce ee 
mW: Macaroni... I izeenrea (eine Pee cera iene. if : 


[els 76 Baowux[dv 21 letters 

15 Tim. |.Joo . [ 2 
[. 5 ° [ 30 ” 
(Sasrareceeaeeademmass Bn( ) K olay ((SvoBdrous),| Bivo( )) B [un (reTpaéBodror), 

copwi(wv) [d AB,| ipalriwv) B 8, 7 éo(rol)] Kn oqn, émad(Aayjs) 8 
(oBorGv) (jpemBEdLov) (réraprov) x(aArkobv), A TE (6Bodés) (7utwBErLOV ?) 
((réraprov) yx(adKoos). 

“Qpat Ter[olotpiuos pn ) B K}y (dvoBdrous), Buol ) a O (dvoBdrous) 
copwiiwv) B is, 

20 ipa(riov) a ¢, / to(rol) ¢ ve (retp@Bodrov), emadX(Aayis) @ (retpdéBodoyv ?) 
x(aAkods) yZ, ve (dvdBodro) y(adrxor) yZ. 

SepOet ITacaros ....p. xos rovroma .[.. 

[- - ss «| Ooredros: [. .] . poxl. .| Tovron[.... 
esroret ceric Brsi| os [ovens ne ecole sles emOOU| 
[ 25 letters }p) 

3. XoiBvorpe: cf. 112. 26. 

5-6. The offices of topogrammateus and komogrammateus here seem to have been 
combined in a single person, as at a later period in P. Oxy. 251 and 252. There is 
hardly room at the end of |. 5 for rod, still less for a proper name. Perhaps, however, 
rod was abbreviated or written very small; it is noticeable that in the corresponding 
passage in 67.9 there is only a very short space between kai and kopoypapparéas, 

g. emad(Aayns): cf. 67. 15, note. 

1osqq. This passage, ordering a deduction to be made for reasons which are obscured 
by the mutilation of the papyrus, has nothing corresponding to it in 67. 

16. There is a break below this line, and it is quite uncertain how many lines are 

17-8. The total number of io(roé) and their value being preserved in 1. 18, and the 
prices of the different units being known (cf. 67. 12-4), a calculation shows that the items 
here must be either (a) 20 wy(_) at 11 dr. 4 ob, = 233 dr. 2 ob., 2 Buo( ) at 9 dr. 2 ob. = 
18 dr. 4 ob., 4 copea at 8 dr. = 32 dr., 2 iud(ria) at 7 dr. = 14 dr., total 298 dr.; or (6) 
19 py( ) = 221 dr. 4 ob, 4 Buo( ) = 37 dr. 2 ob., 4 copia = 32 dr, I iua(riov) = 7 dr., 
total 298 dr. The first set of figures suits the vestiges of ]. 17 the better. 

21-2. The second halves of these two lines seem to be identical. rod romép[you might 
possibly be read, but it is difficult to see why the toparch should be introduced in this context. 



Mummy to. 15:6 x 7 cm, B.C. 230 (229). 

A short letter from Asclepiades (cf. 67-8), directing Clitarchus (cf. 66, introd.) 
to come to him bringing an account and the balance of some money. The 
» writing is across the fibres of the papyrus. 

Knrerépyor Xaiperv. 
mapayivov TH 
n tov ‘Addp Kopigov 
5 Tov TE Nbyov TOU 
Paap. kal Tae Tepiov- 
Ta XpHpara, 
[Kal] pa &AAwS TroL7- 
lones. | 
10 eppwco, (€rous) in ABvp «. 

3. ov of mapayivov corr. from code. 

‘ Asclepiades to Clitarchus, greeting. Come up on the 8th of Athur bringing both the 
account of Phaophi and the balance of the money, without fail. Good-bye. The 18th 
year, Athur 5.’ 

70 (a). Letter or ZoiLus To CLITARCHUS. 

Mummy to. 15:4X 7-6 cm. B.C. 229-8 (228=7), 

A letter from Zoilus telling the banker Clitarchus (cf. 66, introd.) that a 
payment of 10 drachmae was due from another Zoilus for the 5 per cent. 
(€yxvxAtov) tax on a purchase of land. 70 (0) and 168 are similar notifications of 
payments due to the bank for the éyxvxAvov. The writer was most probably the 
farmer of the tax, and these documents represent the d.aypapai which figure in 
the common formula of éyxvkdov receipts,’ réraxtar émt rHv tTpdmeay eyxvKAlov Kara 
diaypapiy teAwvGv; cf. e.g. P. Amh. 52. 

The view of Revillout (Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. xiv. p. 120 sqq.) that the rate 
of the éyxvxAvov tax, which according to him was fixed by Psammetichus at 4'5, 

220 JEU UES Ee VAG cad 

was reduced in the gth year of Epiphanes to #5, has already been refuted, as 
Wilcken points out (Ost. I. p. 183), by P. Petrie III. 57 (6), which proves that 
the rate of #5 existed in the 4th year of that king. The Hibeh papyri now 
carry this rate back to the reign of Euergetes I, and we suspect that Revillout’s 
account of the early history of the tax is altogether erroneous. It is very un- 
likely that the Ptolemies lowered a rate which they found already established ; 
the tendency of their finance was rather in the opposite direction. 

Zwihos Kneirépyot 
xaipev. dé£at mapa 
Zwirov Tob IIrode- 
patov Siveréws 

5 &po(upav) kK ovKapivoa- 
kavOivov rob 
as €mpiato mapa 
Biwvos rot Pidypo- 
vos ’Eperpiéws yar- 

10 KoU mTpos apytplov 
[(Spaxpav) o| kK (dpaxpas) déxa. 

Eppwco. (€rous) 16 

[ ] 

‘Zoilus to Clitarchus, greeting. Receive from Zoilus son of Ptolemaeus, of Sinope, on 
account of 20 arourae of smooth (?) mulberry-acanthus land, which he has bought from 
Bion son of Philemon, Eretrian, for 200 drachmae of copper on the silver standard, the 
twentieth, namely 10 drachmae. Good-bye. The 19th year...’ 

5. The letters at the beginning of this line are broken, but it is clear that the 
abbreviation for dpovpay, if that be the word meant, is written in an abnormal manner, 
the usual stroke above the line being replaced by a small 0; the supposed a and p are also 
very doubtful. But both the tenor of the document and the analogy of 70 (4) and 163 
make dpovpav here almost indispensable. zirod in 1. 6 is also a difficulty; we can find no 
parallel for the application of the adjective Aids to land. There is, however, hardly any 
doubt about the reading; the only possible substitutes for the first two letters are a and p, 
but these are much less satisfactory, 

Q. XaAxov mpos dpyvptov : i.e. copper at a discount. An agio of about ro per cent. was 
usually charged for payments in copper which ought to have been in silver; cf. 67. 15, 
note, and 109, 6. 



Mummy ro. 75X71 cm. About B.c. 228. 

Conclusion of another notification, no doubt addressed like 70 (2) to 
Clitarchus, that 2 drachmae were due to the bank for the éyxdxAvoy tax on a 
purchase of land. The vendor is described as a Perso-Egyptian (Iepoatyirruos), 
i.€., presumably, the son of a mixed marriage. 

udxipos ‘Hpaxide- 
omoNiTns aptré- 

Aov (apotpas) ad [[ns]] Hv 
émpiato Kar [Al- 

yuntias cvyypa- 


pas mapa ‘Acged 

“Qpov Iepoayumzt- 

ov mept Kopunyv Tpol- 

veliuiv (Spaxpov) p K B. 
ro [ €ppwoco, (Tous). . .] 

‘(Payment is due from) . . ., native soldier, of Heracleopolis, on account of 12 arourae 
of vine-land bought by him in accordance with Egyptian contracts from Aspheas son of 
Horus, Perso-Egyptian, near the village of Tmoinethumis for 40 drachmae, the twentieth, 
namely 2 drachmae. Good-bye. year...’ 

1. The formula must have differed slightly from that in 70 (a), Probably égeiAer took 
the place of deéac rapa. 

8. Tyowebduw ; cf. 163; in 80. 7 the name is spelled with an initial e. 


Mummy A rr, 8-5 X 11-7 cm, B.C. 245 (244). 

A fragment of a series of official letters concerning a strike of slaves 
employed in a stone-quarry. Lines 4-11 contain a copy of a letter from 
Antiochus to Dorion forwarding a letter from Aenesidemus, of which only the 
beginning is preserved (ll. 12-4), and ordering the immediate arrest of the 
offenders, Lines 1-3 are the conclusion of a letter which may be from Dorion 


to the @vAakirat. From 72, in which Antiochus and Dorion recur, it appears that 
the latter was an epistates (sc. @vAaxitév) probably at Phebichis, and the quarry 
in question was most likely on the east bank in the neighbourhood of that village, 
possibly at Hibeh itself ; cf. pp.g-10. The third year, in which the correspondence 
took place, no doubt refers to the reign of Euergetes. 

[ 1g letters pl: [ 
ears av|riypag|. .| yevécOo .. . [ 
aoe avagep|. . .| Eppwoode. (Erous) y Oodv8 xk. 

Avrioxos Awpio xalpev. THs EemorolAns 
fis yéypahey piv Aivnoidnpos rept tlav 
avakexwpnkoTay cwparov eK THS €|v 


Kegadais Aatopias améotadkd ofojt Ta[y- 
tiypapa. as av ody AdBnis Ta ypapplata 
tiv macav onovdny Toinca briws ava- 
10 ¢nTnOévtes amroaTadhoct pos [mas 
pera dudakis. €ppwoo. (Erovs) y Ofa|dé |.| 
Aivnoidnpos Avribyo: xaipev. A. d|.. 
IIdéo.ros ‘AppoditomoXirns (kai... f 
. ros “HpakdeoroXizns . | 

4-11. ‘Antiochus to Dorion, greeting. I have sent you a copy of the letter which 
Aenesidemus has written to me about the slaves who have deserted from the stone-quarry 
at Cephalae. As soon as you receive this letter use every effort to search for them, and 
send them to me under guard. Good-bye. The 3rd year, Thoth.’ 

6. cepdre@y: slaves were also employed in the quarries in the Fayftm near Lake Moeris 
(cf. P. Petrie II. 4 (2). 5 and 4 (9). 4), but there the Aardpor proper were free wage- 
earners; cf. P. Petrie II. 13 (1). 1 ehevdep o Natopor, For dvaxexwpynxdtov ch Padiebt: aA 
18 and 41. 14, where strikes of Baowckot yewpyoi are referred to. 


Mummy A 7. 17 X35 cm. B.C. 241 (240). 

The subject of this lengthy text is the disappearance of the official seal 
belonging to the temple of Heracles at Phebichis. A large piece is unfortunately 
missing from the upper part of the papyrus, but the sense except in one or two 


passages is nevertheless clear. The body of the document is occupied by a copy 
of a petition from Petosiris, high-priest of the temple, addressed to Dorion the 
epistates. The seal, it appears, had been missing for five months; and Petosiris 
had written previously to Dorion accusing a certain Chesmenis, a priest, and his 
son Semtheus of having stolen it. Information had also been given to the 
basilicogrammateus, but inquiries had led to no result. Dorion was therefore 
requested to take further steps. An official was accordingly sent, and the 
petition is succeeded by a copy of his report. Chesmenis on being questioned 
denied that he had the seal, but the next day four other priests volunteered the 
information that it was all the while in the sanctuary—of which Chesmenis 
seems to have been in charge—but said that they were afraid that if they gave 
it to the high-priest, he would use it fora common indictment against them. These 
two documents are inclosed in a short covering note from Dorion to Antiochus, 
who also appear in conjunction in 71. 4. It is noticeable that there Antiochus’ 
name precedes that of Dorion, while here the positions are reversed. Since the 
papyri are practically contemporary and belong to the same find (cf. p. 11), there 
is good reason for assuming the identity of the persons. It will follow that the 
position of the names of writer and addressee is no surer guide to their relative 
dignity in the third century B.C. than in the second ; cf. P. Tebt. 13. 2, note, and 
22, introd. Except in formal petitions, the writer of a letter seems to have 
usually placed his own name first. 

It is remarkable that in ll. 6-7 the high-priest accuses Chesmenis of having 
abstracted the seal in order to use it for letters to Manetho. The manner in 
which this name is introduced indicates that its bearer was a well-known man, 
and seeing that the persons concerned are priests, it is not impossible that 
we here have a reference to the famous writer on Egyptian history and religion, 
who was himself a priest, probably of Sebennytus. If that be so he lived later 
than has been generally supposed. Hardly any details concerning Manetho’s 
life are known, but according to Plutarch (De /s. et Osir, 28) he was consulted 
by Ptolemy Soter. That he should be still alive and active in the 6th year of 
Euergetes is surprising, but not absolutely inconsistent with Plutarch’s state- 
ment, if Manetho lived to a great age. 

Awpiwy ‘Avribxat xaipev. tod mpds [we 15 letters dropvi|yatos mapa 

ITerocipios Tob 

apxiepews Tob eu PeBixer “Hpaxdréovs EvOe.%........ iepod, kal Tar 

emri|0 olPévT@y mapa Tay lepéwy 

imoyeypapd aot 7a aytiypapa: aéid oe ev.{ 22 letters | Eppwoo. 

(Eros) ¢ Papevad ¢. 


droépyynpa. Awpiove emiotdryn. mapa [Ilerociptos apyxtepéws.  mpdzlepov 
go. eveddvioa ev Tat Xoiax 
5 pynvi wept tis oppayidos rob lepod didtt [......~---- aitny Xecpunvis| 
kal Seubeds 6 vids ev rat Addp pyvi 
dmd évdrns, Tobro de Em[plagev mpds 7d of 22 letters ] ay [aly Bov- 
AovTar ypdgey Mave- 
6a. Kai of dv BovrAwvtat. mpocayyéAdkw ovdfy 18 letters é7rel] o[d] 
duvapeOa xphnoacbat &ddnt 
[oplpayidr, eddkapey St ey tH Xoiax pyivi 21 letters |...) ra mapa 
‘Apvétov Bacidtkar 
[yplaupmaret mepl rovroy wroprinlua [agidv 19 letters |] - [.Japov arre- 
oTaXkoTa mpos 
10 [‘Apud|rnv NexOeupéws tov mpéreploly [ev Tar advTw dvTa Kal Tov v bv 
tmdpxyov7a Xeophvey 
ere ener aes) mubécba mepi THS oppayidos | 24 letters Jas mapa Sep- 
béws Tod Xeopy- 
[vilol[s . Jr. [.Je{......-vn oomp.7i-.].vf..----- }-( 14 letters ei- 
Alnpévat. Karas ovv Toijoes 
[eZ] ofole Soxe? pl... .] amooreiAal twa m[pds| avrodis...... \ Go Shas [.] 
. [os tod ITaotros Kai ‘Apudrov 
rod NexOeupéws mept rovrov Kal ypdvale] ply m[pos... .Jov Tov otpa- 
[tThly[oly. ev TwXEL, 
15 (€Tovs) = Papevod 5. amoorarels 'Apiorivixos mpos tov [ev Tat] advTax 
X[clopqlylw emnpdra ef trdpye ev TOL 
iepdx [7 . ]] ) ohpayis He xpOvrae of [iJeplelés mpos Tas ypaglOnooluévas émi- 
atodds, Xeopnvis d& ovK Edn Exewv. 
rhe Ot] ¢ mapayevopevot Ooropraios ‘Alp|uaxdpov ‘Apudxopos Ney Oeppe- 
[ojy[s] ‘Ipov6ns IIvdorols| Apydérns Ne- , 
xOeupéous TH pev ohpayida wpodbyouy bmdpxew ev Tat advTaL, TA[L Oe 
apxlepel ov|k] Epacay morevev 
iva pi) Kupivoas Kowiy émioToNy Kata ravtev ypdrpas oppayion{rat 
avlTh. THe oppayio.. 
On the verso 
20 ‘Avri6yot [ | 

2. Second e of peBiye inserted after « was written. 8. 1. Bacidcxod ypapparéws ? 


‘Dorion to Antiochus, greeting. I have written below for you copies of the 
memorandum addressed to me by Petosiris the high-priest of the temple of Heracles 
Eu ... at Phebichis and the declaration presented by the priests. I beg you to (take 
cognizance of the matter?). Good-bye. The 6th year, Phamenoth 7. 

‘Memorandum. To Dorion the epistates from Petosiris, high-priest. I made 
a previous statement to you in the month of Choiak about the seal of the temple, that it was 
abstracted by Chesmenis and his son Semtheus on the ninth of the month Athur, which he 
did in order to (seal?) anything they may wish to write to Manetho and any other persons 
they please. I therefore report the matter to you, since we cannot use any other seal; 
and in the month of Choiak I presented a memorandum on the subject to... agent of 
Haruotes the basilico-grammateus(?), requesting him to send... to Haruotes son of 
Nechthemmeus, who was formerly in the sanctuary, and Chesmenis, who is now there, to 
inquire about the seal; and he (reported, having learnt ?) from Semtheus son of Chesmenis, 
that... had (not?) taken it. You will therefore do well, if it please you, to send some one 
to them ...son of Paous, and Haruotes son of Nechthemmeus concerning this matter, 
and write for me to... the strategus. Farewell. 

‘The 6th year, Phamenoth 6. Aristonicus having been sent to Chesmenis who is in 
the sanctuary asked him if the seal which the priests used for the letters that they had to 
write was in the temple; and Chesmenis denied that he had it. On the 7th, however, 
Thotortaeus son of Harmachorus, Harmachorus son of Nechthemmeus, Imouthes son of 
Pnasis, and Haruotes son of Nechthemmeus came and confessed that the seal was in the 
sanctuary ; but they said they did not trust it to the high-priest, lest when he obtained 
possession of it he should write a letter accusing them all and seal it with the actual seal. 
(Addressed) To Antiochus.’ 

1. Petosiris the high-priest is also mentioned in 181. 

2. Ei@e...seems to be an unknown epithet of Heracles; the third letter looks like 
6 but this may be due to some ink having come off from another papyrus, in which case o 
might be read. Perhaps, however, iepod did not follow, and evée .| need not then refer to 
“HpakXéous at all. For the cult of Heracles, i.e. Hershef, cf. the mention of a ‘HpaxXeiov in 110. 5. 

3. a&@ ce ev. ; or perhapsagimoasy.|. The doubt is caused by some extraneous ink ; 
cf. note on I. 2. 

6. o|ppayicacéa is the natural word, but the genitive dv is not easy to account for. 

g. There remains only the tip of the letter before pov, but it is sufficient to exclude 

10. The supplement after zpdrep{oly is suggested by 1. 15. 

11-2. This passage is too much damaged for complete reconstruction. Something 
like 6 8€ atta amnyyedev dxovolas mapa SeuOews . . . rovTovs pi) €id|npevat (Sc. Tv odpayida) or 
tov deiva eid|npévae may have been written. 

13. After m|pis| airod[s some such supplement as zevodpevov mapa suggests itself, but 
the traces of letters are so scanty that they can hardly be identified. 

14. a[pos .. . r|dv orpalry|y(d|v is not very satisfactory, but orpa cannot be avoided, and 
the other letters, though not certain, suit the vestiges. 

16. ypad[@nco\névas: the future is not wanted, but ypad/o|uévas does not fill the space. 
Possibly, however, there was a flaw in the papyrus, which the writer left blank. 


73. Lretrer or ANTIGONUS TO DORION. 
Mummies 69 and 7o. 23-5 X 12-9 cm. 

A letter from Antigonus to the epistates Dorion (who is different from the 
Dorion in 72) recounting the same events which are the subject of 34, a petition 
of Antigonus to the king; cf. introd. to that papyrus. This document, like 34, 

is only a draft, and is full of additions and corrections ; it is written on the verso, 
the recto being blank. 

‘Avriyjovos Awpijwvt xalpew. €ypawas mepi Kaddcdpo- 
Tov Kaddckpa |rou 
dr Byé ‘ ~ > r 4 ) ‘\ Q 7 
fou @laTe ElTL Kal viv ewaviayKdoat avToy Tov dveY 
[ Tae Kupi jac 

, ALC \ \ eS cay ‘f 

anodoby at 7) Ti\piy av7a [].. | 17 letters 
6 KadXiépo[pos, dé tov Awpiwvia 16 ,, 
omws [. +. .] evéyene 

3 [| Kau eav \{.. |pn|jé . va amorul 17 
~ rN S) ‘\ ‘\ “~ we f VN ’ ‘ Ke € 
mpakat Oj€ avjrov Tiny Tod O\vov (paypas) K. Ey@ ody rov- 
X7e pev Kalra rly [[7]] ypapetody pole bro cot emorodAnv 
annyayov Tov) Ka\AAié|popoy eis 76 ev Sivdpy decpw- 
THptov iva 7\d Urog\vytov anloda Awpior, Ildztpwv de 
apxe THLs KaTw | ToTapxias 
10 6 gvdakirns taplaye|vopevols) eis TO Serpwrhpioy 
70 €v Swapv 
eényayey Tov Kaddidpopoy (€k Tot decpwrnpiou 
peas KaTa TO 
wate pry dtvacbat tiv mpagiv mojoacba || eK Tov 

[[ceparos || tov re dvov avayaylav els THY olkiay 
ev Taxovat 

\ 4 , € ~ > la 7 4 , la 

kal €xav Trap avTau ey péoov a dyipnKkey avrov. 
15 €L OUY By NppwoTHioapev em| 16 letters 


> = ) ~ 
[lov |] <Anpev av map atrod dvd Tivos payxatpopo- 

4 Gy \ 4 re InN- ° 

pov. €eyparpa ovv cot rept rovtwy ‘draws eidqis elvat 
v ~ ‘ , ~ r ¢ 3 / ‘\ 
aittoy Tov pH yevécOa Tat Aal\piwvt amddoow Tiv 
Ildérpwvos Biav, os ameO@v SialreréXeKe Tois Tra- 

20 pa aod mpooTdypmacw. E|[ppwoo. (€rous) 6 


17. pov Pap. 


‘Antigonus to Dorion, greeting. You wrote to me about Callidromus, now at last to 
compel him either to give up the donkey to its master or to pay him its value. But 
Callidromus . . . to exact from him the value of the donkey, 20 drachmae. I therefore in 
accordance with the letter which you wrote to me removed Callidromus quietly to the 
prison at Sinaru in order that he might restore the animal to Dorion. But Patron the 
archiphylacites of the lower toparchy came to the prison at Sinaru and released Callidromus 
from the prison, so that I was not able to carry out the execution according to the edict; 
and he took away the donkey to his house and has removed it from my reach by keeping 
it with him at Takona. If I were not unwell I should have taken it from him through one 
of the sword-bearers. So I write to you about it in order that you may know that the 
reason why restitution has not been made to Dorion is the violence of Patron, who has 
continued to disobey your orders. Good-bye. The 4th year...’ 

2. The insertion above the line suggests a patronymic, and cf. 84. 2 Kad)idpo|uov KadXe- 
kpdrous ; but z|o# Kaddcxpalrov (cf. e.g. 111. 32 (©n |pazévov) is rather long for the lacuna. 

3. Tae kupilor: cf. 84. 3. 

4-5. The construction and sense of these two lines is obscure. With regard to the 
insertion above |. 5, there is a space both after émws and before évéykn. It is doubtful 
whether the erasure below extends beyond py; at any rate va was left untouched, though 
perhaps if iva was written the interlinear ér@s was intended to replace it. Above the end of 
1, 4 there are slight traces of ink which may represent another insertion. 

6. (Spaxpas) k: cf. 84. 3. ovxqe is written with an iota adscript also in P. Petrie 
I. 19. 5 and Hl. 8. 5. 

7. vmod gov emoroAnv: Cf. 84, 2 Kata mpdataypa Awpiwvos. 

g-10. Cf. note on 84. 1. 

12. [[ex rov| geoparos ||: cf. 84. 8. 

16. paxaipops|pov: payaipopéspor are frequently met with in the second century s.c. (cf. 
P. Tebt. 35. 13, note), but there seems to be no other mention of them in the third. pov 
might also be the termination of a proper name; but the supplement we have suggested is 
more suitable to the context. 


Mummy A. 8 X 24:2 cm. About B. c. 250. 

A letter from one official to another, authorizing a payment of olyra (durra) 
to three persons who are probably minor officials. The conclusion of the document, 
which belongs to the reign of Philadelphus or Euergetes, is lost. An interesting 
conversion of artabae on the doyixéy measure into artabae on the dyyAwrikéy 
measure occurs in ll, 2-3, but the proportion of 40: 38 which is found here brings 
the evidence of this papyrus into conflict with that from other sources ; cf. note 
on 1.2. The writing is across the fibres. 

oS ee ee | 12 letters Xa ijperv. pérpnooy NoBdvxi yxupioz[n\e Kal 


228 PIB. PAP R 

2 Sepubéws kal ‘ApoeupOeli| ra: mapa Te[ajrois] ddup(av) (dpraBas) “Br§y 
LO pérpat doxika, 
[lore ylver]Oa dvndrorikar Bh, svuBor\a de moinoa mplojs avrojds] B, 


To pev ey eis TO Kdeopdyxov dvopa 
4 (apraBav) “Ay d yiverat dyndorixdr [(aptdéBar) Ay)rd, 75 8 Erepor eis 
roipov dvopa (apraBav) Enzo, 
wate yiverOa advnrlwriKat (apTaéBas) wis, Ta O€ avpPlo|Aa moinoat mpos 


avtovs Kaba dmroye- 
6 ypalmriab cot. peyerp[n 16 letters yplapparéws THs Za[iAoly ‘voulapxias 
4 [.j7[....Jv-.. ard 28 letters jxme. .]..[....]r 


. . . . . . . . . . 

On the verso 

3. [w ore added in the margin. avnAerixar above the line. 4. lL. rovdpov. 
‘,.. greeting. Measure to Nobonchis the agent, and Horus son of Semtheus, and 

Harsemphtheus the subordinate of Teos 2368$ artabae of olyra on the receiving measure, 
which are on the spending measure 2500, and make two receipts with them, one in the 
name of Cleomachus for 1600 artabae, equivalent to 1684 on the spending measure, 
the other in my name for 7683 artabae, equivalent to 816 on the spending measure, and 
make the receipts with them as herein instructed... .’ 

2. 23683 artabae on the doxexédy measure were equivalent to 2500 on the dynrerixdy 
measure, being subdivided in Il. 4-5 into 1600 dox. (which = 1684 dnd.) + 768% dox. (which 
= 816 dm.); the missing figures are supplied by the arithmetic. As often happens in 
conversions from one standard to another, the ratios implied are not quite consistent, 
being approximately 71:75, 400: 421, and 161 : 171 in the three cases respectively. 
A proportion of about 20 : 21 seems to be that aimed at, i.e. 1 art. doy. = Igl5 and. The 
sizes and names of the different kinds of artabae mentioned in papyri give rise to many 
problems ;: for the most recent discussions of them cf. P. Tebt. I. pp. 232-3, and Hultsch, 
Archiv, U1. pp. 426-9. On the one hand there is a series of artabae ranging from 40 (or 
42) to 24 choenices, and on the other a series of artabae on measures which bear the names 
Spduov, avnrwrixdv, Taddov, biAlrmov, ‘Eppod, xadrxorv, opixdy, Onoavprxdy, and Sdoxixdy, to which 
may now be added the artaba pérpax ta xou Tt Baorixdr (84 (2). 6, 9O. 11), and the art. 
petpot a.(  ) of apparently 40 choenices in 119.18. The main difficulty lies in the 
fact that although the relative sizes of the first six of the artabae in the second series are 
known from P. Brit. Mus. 265, in no case hitherto has there been direct evidence to 
connect any of these six with an artaba of the first series. In order therefore to determine 
the number of choenices in the artabae of the second series it is necessary to start from 
an assumption that one particular artaba in it is identical with an artaba in the first, 
or at any rate has a definite number of choenices. In P. Tebt. 2 ¢. we took as our 
starting-point the supposed identity of the artaba So0x«x@, which was known to be 
an official measure and was shown by P. Tebt. 61 (4). 390 to be § of an artaba dpéuo, with 


the artaba of 36 choenices often found in official corn-accounts in P. Tebt. I. From that 
primary assumption we concluded that the art. dpdue in P. Tebt. 61 (2) and P. Brit. Mus, 
265 contained 42 choen., the art. dyy\wrixg 314 choen., and the art. xadxk@ 3273 choen. 
Hultsch on the other hand, starting from the assumption that the art. dpéu@ contained 40 
choen. attributes 312 choen. to the art. xadk@ and 29% choen. to the art. dvndorice. 
The art. doy, which in P. Tebt. 61 (4). 390 stood at a ratio of 6:7 to the art. dpdpe, 
is not taken into consideration by Hultsch; it would on his view of the size of the 
art. 8pdu@ contain 342 choen. Applying these rival theories to the present passage, 
which gives the relative sizes of the art. doyuxe@ and dvmwrixd, the ratio of 21: 20 there 
indicated is equally inconsistent with our proposed ratio of 36 : 314 and Hultsch’s ratio 
of 342 : 293; and it is clear that whatever view be taken of the number of choenices 
in the artabae dpduo and doxexd in P. Tebt. 61 (4). 383, it is impossible to combine the 
evidence of that passage with 74. 2 and P. Brit. Mus. 265 except by supposing either 
that there are one or more errors in the arithmetic of the conversions, or, what is more 
likely, that one at least of the three artabae Soyixé, dpdum, and dvywrixg, was capable of 
variation in size. ‘The inconsistency between the ratio of the art. doxxeé and dynrorikd 
found in 74 and the ratio of them found by combining P. Tebt. 61 (4). 383 with P. Brit. 
Mus. 265 is easily intelligible, if e.g. the art. doxc@ in 74 is not the same as the art. 
Soxixo in P. Tebt. 61 (J). 390, or if the art. dpdum in P. Tebt. 61 (4). 390 is different 
from the art. dpéuo in P. Brit. Mus. 265, or if the art. dynAwrxé in 74 is different from the 
art, dypAwrexo in P, Brit. Mus. 265. But without further evidence it is impossible to detect 
by which of these three possible entrances the inconsistency has crept in. ‘The ratio of 
21: 20 between the art. doy and dvydotxo found in 74 is thus irreconcilable for the 
present with the other evidence for the relation of those two measures, but does it 
correspond to the ratio of the art. dvy\erxé to any other known artaba? The answer to 
that question is in the affirmative. The ratio of the art. xaAx@ to the art. avyorxo in 
P. Brit. Mus. 265 is also 21 : 20; and from this correspondence it follows that, provided 
that the art. dvyAwrxe is the same in both papyri, the art. doy«é in 74 is approximately 
identical with the art. ya\xo. Cf. also P. Petrie III. 129 (a). 4 diapopoy dvnrarixd (mupod) 
pre av(&) € p / a8’, where ‘5 per cent on 135 art.’ seems to correspond, as Smyly remarks, 
to the ratio of 21 : 20 between the art. xadxo and amore in P. Brit. Mus. 265, though 
how the total of 12 artabae was reached is quite obscure. The present volume supplies 
some important evidence as to the size of the art. yahk@: cf. 85. 18 pérpar rau (evveaxarer- 
koot)x(owiket) tae mpds Td xadkodv. The phrase rae mpos 1d xadxory, which is also found 
e.g. in P. Amh. 43. 10 and P. Cairo 10250 (Archiv, U. p. 80) without any previous 
specification of the number of choenices, suggests that this art. of 29 choen. is the art. 
xatxo of P. Brit. Mus. 265. This inference is, however, far from certain, because the standard 
measures, whatever their size, were probably all made in bronze (cf. P. Tebt. 5. 85 ta 
ei(orabpa) ev Exdotwr vopar drodederypeva xa(Axa), sc. érpa), and the art. yadxké may well have 
varied in size, as we have found reason to believe was the case with one at any rate of 
the art. dpéye, doyexd, and dvydorxo. But assuming that the art. yadx@ in P. Brit. Mus. 265 
contained 29 choenices we can deduce the approximate sizes of the other artabae in that 
papyrus as follows :— 

XAk@ : Spdpep ee ee 3 ie ODO On 37s choen. 
XAAKG : dyndorikG = 21: 20 .*. ayn, aie tee 
xakg : PXinrov = 10:11 .. Pidinmov = 313% a 
xakko@ : Tadd\hkov == 200: 207.°. TuAkouv = 30585 
XAG : ‘Eppoo = 25: 26 .. ‘Eppou = 305% ,, 

Applying this to the three artabae, @opixd, Oncavpixd, and another unnamed, in P. Brit. 


Mus. 125, the ratios of which to each other correspond almost exactly to those of the art. 
Spéye, xadxo, and ‘Eppod in P. Brit. Mus. 265, we should obtain 3733 choen. for the art. 
boptxé, 29 for the art. @ncavpixe, and 307%, for the unnamed art.; and with regard to 74. 2 
the art. 0x6, being apparently identical with that xa\x@, would contain 29 choen., and if 
the art. doxyexeo in P. Tebt. 61 (4). 390 also has 29 choen, the art. dpeu@ there contains 342 
art. There is a considerable element of uncertainty in these figures owing to the doubt 
attaching to the fundamental assumption that the art. of 29 choen. mpds rd xadxovv in 85. 13 
is identical with the art. yadxé in P. Brit. Mus. 265 ; but there seems to be as much evidence 
for that hypothesis as for either the assumption that the art. doxixg in P. Tebt. 61 (2). 390 
contains 36 choen., which was the basis of our previous calculations, or the assumption that 
the art. dpdp@ contains 40 choen., which is the basis of Hultsch’s scheme. The phrase used 
in P. Tebt. 105. 40 and 109. 20 pérpar é€axowixer Spépov tod €v tH mpoyeypappery Kaopy (se. 
Kepkeooipet) Sovyteiov distinctly indicates that the pérpov dpépov of other temples might be 
different, so that the pérpov Spépou is a singularly unstable foundation upon which to build. 

The pérpa mapadoyicd in 87.12 are probably identical with the pérpov doxuxdy of 74, 
and for another example of the pérpov avndorixdy cf. 101. 8. 

6. Ze\ idol [voplapyias: cf. e.g. Nikovos vopapyxias in P. Petrie III. 37 (a). 1.4. If Zoilus 
here is the captain who is so often mentioned in these papyri (e.g. 96. 30), apxeas may 
be the termination of a military term; but iAapyia does not occur in the Petrie papyri, and 
the immapyta there are distinguished by numbers or by nationalities, not by the names of 
their commanders. 


Mummy A 15. 10-5 X 10-3 cil. BG, 232) (230). 

A letter from Theodorus, probably an dpyiprdakirns or émordarns prdakiTev 
(though cf. 105. 1, note), to the pudaxira: of Talaé in the Kwirms romos (cf. 36. 3, note), 
ordering them to survey and deliver to the purchaser part of a xAjjpos, which had 
reverted to the ownership of the State and was now being sold ; cf. 52. 26, note. 
Amongst other fragments from the same piece of cartonnage is part of a letter 
from Theodorus to Harmiusis, who is probably identical with the Harmiusis in 
36. 2: the 15th year in 1. 10 is therefore more likely to refer to Euergetes than 
to Philadelphus ; cf. also 1. 3, note. 

Ocddwpos tois ev Tadadne pu(Aakirais) xal- 
pew. yéeypadhev piv Ilerocipis 0 To- 
mapxns Kat ITere\t\povOns 6 To- 

Toyp(appareds) mempakévat Piiappove 


€x ToD Piro<evov KA(jpov) wept Tadrdnv 
xoprapdkns (dpovpas) yB’. mapadaBovres 
ovv Tov K@poyp(appaTea) TEpluETpHTATE 


avT@l, mréov SE pi) mpolecbe ws 
mpos [U|uas rod \Aléyou ecopévov. 
10 Eppwoo. (Tous) ve ToBi BP. 

3.» Of meree poudns corr. ? 

‘Theodorus to the guards at Talaé, greeting. Petosiris the toparch and Peti- 
mouthes the topogrammateus have written to me that they have sold to Philammon 
out of the holding of Philoxenus at Talaé 32 arourae of grass-aracus land. ‘Take the 
komogrammateus therefore with you, and measure the area to him, but do not part with 
any more, knowing that you will be held responsible. Good-bye. The r5th year, Tubi 2.’ 

3. This Petimouthes is probably identical with one or other of the topogrammateis 
mentioned in 67. 7 and 68. 5 in the roth year of Euergetes. 

5- Bdogevov kA(npov): a brokevov xdjpos in the Oxyrhynchite nome is mentioned in 85. 
13, where it is called Baovuxés, implying that it had reverted to the Crown like the @:aAtogévou 
khnpos in 75; cf. 52. 26, note. Hence in spite of the difference of situation Philoxenus 
may be the same person in both cases. 

6. Xoprapaky is a new compound, for which ¢f. 180 yepoapdxov. 


Mummy A. 9:8 xX 1ocm. B.C. 248 (247). 

A letter to Docimus, who is probably identical with the Docimus in 86 
and was most likely a sitologus or other official connected with the State 
granaries, from Eupolis, probably a higher official, authorizing a payment of 
durra to be made to the lessee of a kAjpos. This proceeding is stated to be in 
accordance with the terms of the lease, and the durra was perhaps required 
as an instalment of rent due to the landlord, but the mutilation of the important 
word in 1. 8 leaves the object of the payment uncertain. The writing, which is 
very ill-formed, is across the fibres, and apparently on the verso. 

Evrrodts Zervpiwv(os) Aoxiper 
xaipev. mpood Teipoxpa- 
TNL Kata THY ovyypadiy 

es 7 Lee, 7 r 
Tod KAjpov ob éuicOdcaT o 

5 mapa Kpéovtos tod Auziové- 

pov mup@v aptaBarv z{pt- 
akoolwy meEvTHKOVTG |. . 

elis| Tv «. a. ahoptay [djAuv 


pl@lv aprdBas eikoou Tév|re. 

10 Ep|pjwao. (€rous) An 
Owv7T ke. 

On the recto 


‘Eupolis son of Zopyrion to Docimus, greeting. Pay to Timocrates, in accordance 
with the contract concerning the holding which he has leased from Creon son of 
Autonomus for 350 artabae of wheat, for the... 25 artabae of olyra. Good-bye. The 
38th year, Thoth 25. (Addressed) To Docimus.’ 

4-5. eutcOecaro is doubtful, but is preferable to éuicOwcev, although the middle 
and active forms of prodody are occasionally confused in later papyri, e.g. P. Gen. 69 and 
70. It would no doubt also be possible to translate ¢uicOocev in the normal way by 
connecting mapa Kpedryros with mpood and making mupév ... mevrjxovra a partitive genitive ; 
and this would of course account for the payment to Timocrates. But the general 
structure of the sentence and the absence of dé before mupév are in favour of the other 

7. Possibly mevrjxovra [e€, but more probably the line ended with mevrnxovra, 

8. None of the known words ending in -adopia suits the context, and there is no 
sufficient justification for altering -aoptay to -opoptay, or -apopay, though it is possible that 
the word is e.g. dvapopiav, having the same meaning as dvafopav. There might then be 
some connexion between it and the 8 avadopa found in P. Tebt. 100. 8 dvadopiay, however, 
does not fill the space required here, and there is no stroke above the first letter to indicate 
that it is a figure. The mention of the 350 artabae of wheat for rent in |. 6 shows that 
the 25 artabae of olyra were in some way connected with that amount, perhaps forming 
part of it. 


Mummy A. 15:2 X 20-8cm. B.C. 249 (248). 

Conclusion of a circular addressed very likely by the dioecetes or some 
other high personage to officials in, probably, the Heracleopolite nome (cf. 1. 1 and 
110. 5), securing to one or more temples the due payment of their revenues; cf. 
the similar decree by Euergetes II in P. Tebt. 6. A double date of particular 
importance occurs in ]. 8; cf. App. i. p. 341. 

[ 30 letters Jee Tar ‘Hpakrclols 
[eegou a. \pov macropépors 
epee | TOV AOyevVovT@V iva ovYTEATAL TA vomlCopmeva 


[Tos glcois Kabamep 6 Bactkeds orovddge. AoyetovTes Oe 
5 [mapa] ey Kal mpotepoy eid0e 7d mpodiddpevoy amoKkabicraTe 
PE Ee 5] ouvterdypeba yap mepi TOY TEdA@VLKOY Ed’ GL 
[rots Oelois [7a] lepa owbjcecOa Kaba Kal mporepor. 
(Erous) Az “Aprepiciov ky Ilaxov Kp. 
3. 1. Noyevorror. 
. in order that the customary payments may be made to the gods in accordance with 
the eee desire. So collect from the same persons as before and restore (to the priests) 
the amounts previously paid to them, for we have received instructions with regard to the 

collection of taxes that the sacred revenues (?) are to be preserved for the gods as in former 
times. The 36th year, Artemisius 23, Pachon 22.’ 

78. LetTerR oF Nictas To ARGAEUS. 

Mummy A 73. 21°8 X 9-4 cm. B.C. 244-3 (243-2). 

A letter to Argaeus from Nicias requesting that two persons should be 
released from some public service, the nature of which is not specified. As the 
scene was Alabastropolis, it was probably connected with quarrying. The writer 
and addressee no doubt occupied official positions, but there is no indication 
of their rank. The 4th year (1. 24) refers no doubt to the reign of Euergetes. 

Nixias ‘Apyaimt x[atpev. md€o- 
vadkis prov yeypabnkdros cor rept 
Zoidrov kat IIpagipdyov bray 
AeLToupyia mpooméont amrodv- 
> AN ‘ > Q7 € 
5 ely avrTovs Kal ovd€moTE U\7ra- 
KnKoasS Npaov. eTL ovyv Kal vov 
5] 7 BA b) 7 
€MLpeAeS wor EoTw amrodU- 
~ ~ Bo] 
ely avTovs THs viv els AXda- 
, va 7 
Bdotpwv moAWw eToupyias 
10 Ova 7d pry Exrrea[Ei|y avTois TO 
viv eLToupyjoa, Kal éav 
€k tod 'O€upvy|x|irov emir€- 
yovtat Zwidrov amodtaas 
éav O€ €x TOD Kwirov IIpa- 

15 gipaxov: eav d& py dvva- 


Tos Hoba amodtoa ypdryo(p) 
\ a teed 7 
fot Kal Omrws a7ro|Anpryet 
tiv ypadpijy rapa Awpiwvos avev 
enod iva dt éuod TO mapdy- 

~ > 7 
20 yeApa Tois avOparrots 

Eppa. . 
(Emouse) Ou Aeate et lame 
On the verso 
and hand (€rous) 5, meplt Zat- 
25 ov. 
10. eo Of exreo e'y above the line. 18. ypadny above the line. 

‘Nicias to Argaeus, greeting. Though I have often written to you about Zoilus and 
Praximachus, to release them when they are called upon to serve, you have never listened 
to me. So now at last be careful to release them from their present service at Alabastro- 
polis because it is not at present their turn to serve ; and if people are being chosen from 
the Oxyrhynchite nome release Zoilus, if from the Koite toparchy, Praximachus. If, 
however, you are unable to release them, write to me and get the document from Dorion 
without me, so that I may be the means of giving the men the order. Good-bye. The 4th 
year ... (Endorsed) The 4th year, concerning Zoilus.’ 

So .Cieek. hetrie: Me ray mo7—5 Newt ovpyetw ev “ANaBdorpav wore. *Aa8dorpov dds 
is presumably identical with the village in the Hermopolite nome which in Roman times 
was called ’AXaBacrpim ; cf. B. G. U. 553. B. iii. 1. Alabastropolis is placed by Ptolemy 
at some distance from the river, to the south-east of Cynopolis and immediately opposite 
Hermopolis. Ac:toupyds as a title occurs in 96. 14. 

10. ékmeo ei vy, if right, must have much the same sense as mpooréone in ]. 4. The word 
has apparently been corrected ; cf. critical note. 

16. jo6a for js is a grammatical curiosity, perhaps due to a confusion caused by 
the use of js for joa. 

18. Two persons called Dorion held the office of émorarns @udaxiry in the Oxyrhyn- 
chite and Heracleopolite nomes respectively at this time (cf. 84. 2, '72. 4), and the Dorion in 
78 may be identical with one of them or with the Dorion at Phebichis (if he be a distinct 
person) who occurs in 106. 9, &c. 


Mummy 87. 10-2 X 8-5 cm. About B.c. 260. 

This fragment of a letter is noticeable for its elaborate introductory formula, 
which resembles, though it does not quite coincide with, that in P. Petrie III. 53 (0); 
cf. II. 13 (6). 1-3. The date is probably within the reign of Philadelphus. 


TIrodepnaijos, ‘Hpaxdeide 

Xalpev. €l Eppwoar Kal 

ev mpévotay moet Kal 

TaANA ToL KATA Abyor EaTily 
5 ein) av as ey® Oéd@ kal 

Tots Oeots todd} ya\ptls, 

vylawvoy d€ Kai adres. 



On the verso 

‘Ptolemaeus to Heraclides, greeting. If you are well, and if the objects of your care 
and other concerns are to your mind I should be glad, and much gratitude would be due 
to the gods; I myself am also in good health. You will oblige me...’ 

8. The letters above the line are very blurred and may have been cancelled. és is 

80. Export or WINE. 

Mummy 117. Eye S OG U2 cit. Bu@ae25Os 

A notice from Epichares to Chaeremon that Horus and another person 
(cf. note on ll, 2-3) were each exporting two jars of wine from villages in 
the Heracleopolite nome to Hiera Nesus, and that the tax of 4; had not been 
paid. This Hiera Nesus is no doubt the village of that name in the south of 
the Fayiim (cf. e.g. 81. 16), where Chaeremon presumably held an official post ; 
and the tax of 3, is probably to be regarded as an export duty analogous to 
those known in the Roman period. It may be conjectured that these tickets 
were given to the persons exporting the commodity, and that they had to produce 
them on reaching their destination. At the end is a signature in demotic, 
having an important date by two different systems of reckoning the king’s years ; 
cf. note ad loc. 154-5 are similar notices passing between the same officials. 
The writing is across the fibres of the papyrus. 

‘Emxdpns Xailp\j{pove yaltpeiv. 

lel eyece peri le ee eed ra. Selan[ iva cram 


K. (Jews 708, “Hplax|dcorodlrov (vopod ets 

‘Tepav Nijoov oivov k(epduia) B av Ko ov nlempa)xa- 
5 pev. Eppwao. (€rovs) de [[IIav]] “Evei¢ |. 

and hand ’Emixdpns Xatpjpove yaiperv. 

e€dye|t) “Qpos Tearos ex Oplor- 

vebtpews TOD “H\palkdeo- 

molAérfou) volo] ¢[és ‘Teplaly 
10 Nijoov olvov K(epduia) B av K & 

ov trem|[pl|éyapev. €ppwoo. (€Tovs) rE 

'Enag 6. 
hs Af meee) ca 

On the verso 
15 *“Qpos Tearos. 

6-14. ‘Epichares to Chaeremon, greeting. Horus son of Teos is exporting from 
Thmoinethumis in the Heracleopolite nome to Hiera Nesus 2 jars of wine, on which we 
have not exacted a 24th. Good-bye. The 35th year, Epeiph 4. 

‘(Signed in demotic) Written by Haruotes, 2 measures of wine... Written in year 
34 which makes year 35, Epeiph 4.’ 

2-3, We are unable to reconcile the vestiges at the beginning of 1. 3 with OpomeOtpews, 
neither do the very indistinct letters in ]. 2 well suit “pos Tedros, and a longer name seems 
to be required. It is therefore preferable to suppose that this is not a single notice 
in duplicate, but two distinct notices written on the same sheet. Perhaps Horus and the 
other person were going in company. 154-5 also are not in duplicate. 

13-4. For the transcription and translation of the demotic signature of the scribe we 
are indebted to Mr. Griffith. It contains the earliest extant mention of the two different 
methods of counting the king’s years, which is found also in P. Petrie III. 58 (¢@) and 
P. Magd. 35; cf. Smyly, Hermathena, X. No. xxv, p. 432, and our discussion in App. ii. 
Pp: 358-367. The ‘revenue’ year, which in those two papyri is explicitly called the year as ai 
mpécodot, began, we think, on Thoth 1, and the figures denoting it were sometimes one unit 
in advance of those of the ‘regnal’ year. In the present case the 35th is the revenue year, 
the 34th the regnal; and the papyrus shows that the 35th regnal year of Philadelphus must 
have begun later than Epeiph 4, i. e. more than ro months after the beginning of the 35th 
revenue year. 



Mummy 98. 28-8 x 25-8 cm. B.C. 238 (237). 

This papyrus and the next both belong to the correspondence of Asclepiades, 
an official of some importance in the Arsinoite nome in the gth year (of 
Euergetes). 81 contains a series of letters from Artemidorus, giving information 
of the death of certain cavalry soldiers, and directing that possession of their 
holdings should be resumed by the government. The language of Artemidorus 
plainly implies that the reversion of such xAjpo. to the State at their owner’s 
death was the usual course at this period. That fact was not before definitely 
ascertained, though it had been inferred from the apparent inability of cleruchs to 
dispose of their holdings by will. In the second century B.C. it became customary 
for the cleruchic holding to pass from father to son, and it is possible that at the date 
of our papyrus also sons of cleruchs commonly received their fathers’ holdings 
by a fresh grant from the State ; but this practice has yet to be proved. Even 
in the later period a cleruch’s rights of ownership were by no means complete ; 
cf. P. Tebt. I. pp. 555-6. 

Besides the column printed there are the ends of lines of the preceding 
column, which, as the words | pepidos and xA7]pous indicate, was of a like character. 
Adhering on the right is part of a new sheet containing the beginnings of lines 
of another letter from Artemidorus, with an enclosure addressed to Nicanor 
similar to that in ll. 5-10 ; one of the holdings referred to was éy PapBa{fors, i.e. 
the Arsinoite village. There is also a separate strip having the first letters of 
lines preceded by a rather broad margin, which may have been the commence- 
ment of the roll; possibly it belongs to Col. i of the main fragment. ©e¢(uiorov) 
occurs in the margin; cf. 1.15 below. On the verso are parts of three much 
effaced columns in a small hand. 

Col. ii. 
[ | 
‘Aprepidwpos: wroyéypaglé olor THs mpos Nixdvopa cm- 
oToAns TO avtiypadoy d[mws €c\dnes. 
[(Erous) 6) Paage x.) 
s Nixdvopit.| of broyeypapplélvoe immets rer[e|AeuTiKacuy, 

avddaBe ovv adbta@y [rod|s KAjpous eis TO BaoidrKov: 


év BovBdéorot tov ’Elmiipévous do(yayds) Si7dAkns 

‘Hp(akdelSov) _ : is 
ab Ron ..uora, év Ocoylovids tév Adkwvos do(xayos) 
TI[o(A€pwvos) | - LBs oe : = Bes 36 D a , 
aera ine. uaxos Ska. [...,| &y TeBérvor trav Ywourortos 
DOr elcedere as vy Appdvios Anj..... 1. ov, (€rovs) 6 Badge xO. 

[ Xoliay 6. 
‘Apreutdwplo|s AckrAnmddea xaipew. of broyeypappevor 
immeis TeTeAeuTHKaoL, avddaBe ovv avToY 
@c(picrov) TOUS KArpous eis TO Baowrtkév: év ‘Hpaxndelat 
15 Ths Oeutorov pepidos tov Adpuwvos do(xayds) Aéaypos 
Avovvcopdvovs, Tav adtav Sde(karvixds) Pirwvidns 
"Apreudépou, ev ‘Iepae Nijoa rhs Iod€pwvos 
tov Alya Sekavixds) "EBpigepis Zixdpov. (érous) 0 ‘AOdp kn. 

20 ‘Apreutdwpos ‘AokrAnmdda xatpev. vtroyeypapa cot 

tis mpos Nixdvopa émiorodAns tavtlypapov smas «loni(s. 

(Erovs) 8 Xoiax in. 

‘Artemidorus: I have written below for your information a copy of my letter to 
Nicanor. ‘The 9th year, Phaophi 29. 

‘To Nicanor. The cavalry soldiers below-written have died ; therefore take back their 
holdings for the State. At Bubastus of the troop of Epimenes, Sitalces son of ..., captain ; 
at Theogonis of the troop of Lacon, ...machus son of Sca..., captain ; at Tebetnu of 
the troop of Sosipolis, Ammonius son of A... The 9th year, Phaophi 29. 

‘Choiak 4. Artemidorus to Asclepiades, greeting. The cavalry soldiers below- 
written have died; therefore take back their holdings for the State. At Heraclia in the 
division of Themistes, of the troop of Damon, Leagrus son of Dionysophanes, captain, of 
the same troop Philonides son of Artemidorus, decurion ; at Hiera Nesus in the division of 
Polemon, of the troop of Lichas, Ebruzemis son of Ziochorus, decurion. ‘The gth year, 
Athur 28. 

1. The day of the month, referring to the date on which the letter was received, was 
no doubt prefixed as in ll. 11 and 19. 

7. do(xayds): cf. P. Petrie III. 4 (2). 29 rav A\ dper jos Noxay 6s’. The Damon mentioned 
there and elsewhere in the Petrie papyri was doubtless identical with the Damon in I. 15 below. 
The marginal entries below this and the next line give the pepides of the villages, Bubastus 
being in that of Heraclides, and Theogonis and Tebetnu in that of Polemon; cf. 1. 15. 

10. The first word of this line should be a title, perhaps |jy«no v. 

16. The abbreviation of Sexam«és (cf. note on 80. 13), recurs in 108. 7, and consists of 
a A with the right side omitted, followed by an «. 

18. The troop of Lichas, like that of Damon (|. 15; cf. note on I. 7), also occurs in 
the Petrie papyri, e.g. I. 16 (1). 12. 



Mummy 98. 33 X 38-4 cm. B.C. 239-8 (238-7). 

This papyrus, like 81, contains copies of a series of letters addressed to 
Asclepiades, but though written in the same hand it is part of a different roll. 
In this case the letters are copied on the verso of a demotic document, and there 
are other points of difference. The dates in 81 are on the Egyptian calendar and 
in chronological order; in 82 the calendar used is the Macedonian, and the 
chronological order is reversed. There the letters were from a single person and 
dealt with one subject ; here the writers, in at least two cases out of the three, 
are different, and their subjects miscellaneous. The first correspondent, whose 
name is lost, writes commending to the care of Asclepiades a letter which was 
to be delivered in the Heracleopolite nome. The second letter, which is sent 
by Aphrus, announces the appointment of a scribe of those cleruchs who had 
been sent to the Arsinoite nome in the 6th and 7th years (of Euergetes). 
Those two years were therefore marked by new settlements in the Fayim on 
a considerable scale. The subject of the third letter is some timber, which the 
writer, Sopater, wished to be sold for the benefit of the Treasury. 


epee Noha AckAn|midder xalpelw. Pipyjver rar 
‘amodovTlt TH\y Tapa cov ypadheloay np 
(émiaToAny| mept To avTiAeyouévou alrou 
ra b] la 7 \ « ~ 4 pax 
5 ‘ov améota\AKas mpos npas ev TE TwL 
- 7 7 4 ee BY , 
(Staac! Otaecrare | K\ep\Kkovp@t Kat ev add@l KEpKOUpal 
r \ t a 7 7 bd XN 
‘Kal Hpets dled@kapev emiaToAry 
r 4 X A X 7 
pet ako\uicat mpos Nvciov tov otrodoyov 
a ¢ ~ > 
tod “HpakXeorroNirov. Karas ovy Troijoels 
10 gpovticas brews emipedas azrod0b7L, 
€oTly yap avayKaloTepa Trepl ay yeypapapey ava. 
(€rous) 0 ‘YrepBeperaiov K¢. 
» 3 7 
‘Agpos ‘AckAnmddet xaipeav. KabeoThKapey 

= me. a i , i > x LS 
15 ypappatea Looxpatnvy Tav amecTahpey w\v 


eis tov ‘Apat\votrny KAnpobxwv ev TOL > (ETEL) 
Kal TOV év ToL ¢ (ETEL) ad Aatciov. Karas ovy ‘Tloijcels 
cuvav{rilAlaluBavopevos mpobtpos mepi Tov 
els Tat’tTa ovykupovTav iva KaT& Témov 
20. e€dynTal Ta KaTa THY ypapparelay 
‘ \ ? ~ A lal 
Kal pnOeév maparelrntrat Tov Tat Baorrei 
7 ” 7 
XPNTipov. (erous) @ Topmiatov te. 

Col. ii. 
Soématpos ‘AckAlnmidder yaipecv. 
25 Kade@s moijoes (mlajpadaBlov..... ean 
Tov Tap uav ypapuparéa Kal 
rovs e(Oicpévovs amodovs 7/&| 
imdpxovta ~vha Xpno7|&) AB 


bd ’ -~ ~ 
@ EG TIV AEs TO| Lo cite te tele aheue | 


30 «= [O|mws 4 Timi) méeone [Ta@\e Bactrel. 
(Erous) 8 Awiov x6. 

‘, Asclepiades, greeting. Phimenis, the bearer of the letter written from you to 
me about the disputed corn which you sent to us in the boat of... and another boat, 
has been given a letter by me to be forwarded to Nysius, the sitologus of the Heracleopolite 
nome. Kindly see that it is carefully delivered, for the matter on which I have written to 
him is rather urgent. The oth year, Hyperberetaeus 27. 

‘yyth. Aphrus to Asclepiades, greeting. I have appointed Isocrates as scribe of the 
cleruchs sent to the Arsinoite nome in the 6th and 7th years from Daisius. Please 
therefore to give your zealous co-operation in all that concerns this, in order that the duties 
of the scribe’s office may be performed in the district and none of the king’s interests may 
be neglected. The gth year, Gorpiaeus 15. 

‘,.th. Sopater to Asclepiades, greeting. Kindly take... our scribe and the other 
accustomed persons, and deliver the 32 good logs which are in the .. ., in order that their 
value may be paid to the king. The gth year, Loius 24.’ 

6. k[ep|kovpar: cf. P. Magd. 37. 2, &c. 

8. Cf. 83. 2-3 rau owrodoy{o|ovre tov O€vpvyxitny. It is doubtful whether in these cases 
stress is to be laid upon the article or not, i.e. whether the person named was the sitologus 
in chief or only one of a number of subordinates. 

12. In the 9th year of Euergetes Hyperberetaeus approximately coincided with Athur, 
Gorpiaeus (1. 22) with Phaophi, and Loius (1. 31) with Thoth; cf. App. i. 

15. ypapparéa ... kAnpovyov: cf. the esurrarns Kai ypappate’s tav Katoikwy tnméwv in P. 

Debt. 325-16, &c: 


25. [mla|pal\af[or, if right, was perhaps followed by the name of the ypapparevs. 

27. droddpevos cannot be read ; but dmodors is suitable enough in the sense of ‘ delivering’ 
for the purpose of the sale implied by 1. 30. 

28. The doubtful A might be the a of ypnora; but it is written quite close to the 8, and 
two logs only would hardly have formed the subject of a letter. 


Mummy 63. IEeIr xX 8-8 cm. About B.c. 258-7. 

Conclusion of a letter in which the addressee, probably an official connected 
with the royal granaries, is urged to lose no time in making a considerable 
payment in kind. The payment is described as a ourowerpia, a term not 
infrequent at this period in the sense of allowances or salaries from either the 
State or private persons; cf. 118. 37, P. Petrie III. 87 (a). 17,141. 15. The 
27th and 28th years (of Philadelphus) are referred to in ll. 5-6. 

f : 
. KpaTEl THL oITO- 

Aoyfolivre tov ’O€upvy- 
xirnv peTpHoar TH 
5 olTopeTpiay Tov K¢ 
kal Kn (€rovs) (wupav) (d4prdBas) yy 
kai kpiav (apraéBas) myy. 
ef ovy py pe(me)\tpnkas viv pétpnoov avb7au, 
kal TovTo gy EAKUONIS, 

, SS 3 4 ld 5] 
10 ov yap émiTHdeLds ETL. 

8. This line inserted later. g. nes Of eAxvonts written above Oerw (which is not 
crossed through), and the first « corr. from @. 10. |, emerjdevov? 

‘,.. to... crates the sitologus of the Oxyrhynchite nome to measure out the allowance 
of corn for the 27th and 28th years, 834 artabae of wheat and 834 artabae of barley. If, 
therefore, you have not yet measured it to him do so now, and do not let this be delayed, 
for it (?) is inconvenient. Good-bye.’ 



2-3. tt oitodoyfolivre: cf. note on 82. 8, and for the phrase cf. e.g. P. Oxy. 246. 4 
Tos ypddover Tov vol pdr. 

8. adrée: i.e. the person who was to receive the ovroperpia, not the sitologus. 

10. If émirydevos is right, it must refer to adré:, ‘he is a disagreeable person’; but the 
correction to emrndevov gives a more natural sense. 


84 (2). Save or WHEAT. 

Mummy 5. 225X175 cm. B.C. 301-0. Prater IX, 

The following contract between two Greek settlers at Peroé in the Koite 
toparchy for the sale of 30 artabae of wheat claims the honour of being the first 
dated Greek papyrus of the reign of Soter. All the documents derived from 
Mummy 5 are remarkably early (cf. 97, 100-1); but the present is by far the 
most ancient of them, being actually dated in the 5th year of ‘the reign of 
Ptolemy,’ by whom only Ptolemy Soter can be meant. As the contract is 
fortunately in duplicate the possibility of a mistake on the part of the scribe, 
such as the omission of ‘the son of Ptolemy,’ is very remote. The cursive 
handwriting however, though obviously of the earliest type, gives little indication 
of its extreme antiquity, and without the date could not have been judged to 
be appreciably older than other examples in this volume, e.g. 97. Curiously 
enough, demotic papyri of Soter’s reign are almost equally rare ; not more than 
two are known to Mr. Griffith (Demotic Papyri in the Fohn Rylands Library, 
p. 123). 

The precise year in which Soter assumed kingly power is not certain. The 
Canon of Ptolemy assigns 20 years to his reign, and it has been generally 
supposed (cf. Strack, Dynastie der Ptoleméer, pp. 189-91) that he became king 
in B.C. 304 before Nov. 7, and abdicated in the course of his 21st (revenue) year, 
i.e. between Nov. 2, B.C. 285 and Nov. I, B.C. 284. The Rylands demotic 
contract to be published by Mr. Griffith was written in Phamenoth of his 
21st year, and can easily be reconciled with the received chronology if the year 
in question was a revenue year; for the month in which Philadelphus’ accession 
took place is unknown, and there is no difficulty in placing that event later than 
Phamenoth (May) B.c. 284, provided that it be not later than Nov. 1. But 
there is good reason to believe that in dating ordinary contracts the revenue 

84 (a), CONTRACTS 243 

year was not employed (cf. App. ii. p. 362), and if the 21st year in the demotic 
papyrus is a regnal year, various difficulties arise. From other instances in the 
reigns of Philadelphus, Euergetes, and Philopator it appears that the regnal 
years of the sovereign were sometimes, perhaps always, one in arrear of the 
revenue years; and if the 21st regnal year of Soter corresponded in whole or 
part to his 22nd revenue year, the Canon of Ptolemy scems to be wrong in 
assigning him only 20 years, and his assumption of kingly power must, unless 
the date of Philadelphus’ accession be altered, be put back a year or more, 
i.e. to B.C. 305 or earlier ; cf. Mahaffy, Ze Ptolemaic Dynasty, p. 44. In 84 (a), in 
which the months are Macedonian, the year, whether calculated by a Macedonian 
or Egyptian system, is not the least likely to be a revenue year (cf. p. 365); and 
owing to the prevailing uncertainty as to the methods of reckoning non-revenue 
years in the 3rd century B.C., the 5th year of Soter may fall within B.C. 301-0, 
300-299, or even earlier than B.C. 301. 

The most interesting point in the papyrus is the occurrence of ed’ tepews 
k.t.\. in the date-formula. This disposes of a much disputed question, for ‘the 
priest’ here can be no other than the priest of Alexander, and therefore the 
official cult of Alexander was already established in Egypt at this early period ; 
cf. App. ili. p. 368. The delivery of the wheat sold by the contract was postponed 
until after the harvest (I. 5), so that many of the provisions of the document 
follow the formula of loans. 

[Baotrevovros IItodepaioly ep iepéws Meveddov rob Aapaxov € (€Tovs) pn- 
[vos Alolv. admrédor[o] “Emipévns “AOnvaios Tipoxdet Xadkiei trv- 
[p@v a|ptdBas tpidkovta, kal Thy Timjy améyer "Emipévns tra- 
[pa Tiluoxréovs dpa rhe ovvypapat. droddrw dé ’Emipévys rojv 
5 |otlrov Tipoxret éy{y} véwy trav emévtav am dro ev pyvi Ia- 
VHp@L olTov xaBapov amo mavT@y péTpoL TOL xot Tat BlalorAck[ ox 
év Kopnt ITepéni, eav S& pi) amodau dmoreicdtw Emi pé- 
vns Tipokret timijy ths aptdBns éxdotns Spaypas 
[tec ]oapas, Kal % mpagis éorw Tipoxrget éx{x} trav drapyov- 
1o [Tey Toy "Emtpévolvs TpdooovTt TpoTwl a av BovrAnTat. 
H Ol€ cuvypagpi Se Klupia ~otw Srav émipépne Tipoxd7As 
7) [Gros Tus rep Tipoxdrléovs mpdocwy KaT& Taira. 
PEC EU PES: ols mae nave 2s A\folyucvos [A]piorépaxos Med 
VOSS Sraotmmoss Ml. 6. 2. = Jos. ouvypadopvaAag Atov[vcwos 
15 ['H]paxréous. 
i R 2 

244 UB ETA CA avec |, 
Bl\ac{Ajevovros IIroNep|atov ep lepéws Meveddouv rod Aapa- 
xolu € (érovs) pnvids Afov.| aréSoto “Emipévns AOnvaios Tipo- 


[kre]0 Xadxidel mup|@ly apra8as tpidkovra Kal THY Tipiy 
[améylee "Em{pélyns mapa Tipoxdéolus| apa tHe ovvypapie. 

[em|ovrov d[m ddrw €ly pnvi ILavipot cirov Kabapov | aro 
md\v\rev [plér[pole Tat xor Tar Bacir{ix|au ev K[@|yne [IT \epone, 
éday Ole] py amroda. dmorecdtw ’Elmi\uévns Tipoxdet 
Tipny THS| aptla|Bns éxdorns Spaxpas técoapas, Kal 7 

25 [mpagils éorl@ Tipjoxdet €x rav trapyxévteov tov ’Em- 


[mévous mpdooor|rt Tpdrat a adv BovrAnrat. % O€ ovvypal pi) 
[de Kupla erm djray [emipé|pn Tipoxdys 7) &Ados Tes 
[dmép Tipokdéous mpdcowy Kka\ra& tlalita. pap|tv- 


On the verso 

30 | MENG srenueee Erripéevolvs 
olv Avovr cio\v T(tpo|KA€ ous 
5 and 21. |. ap’ ado. 14. Above jos a second s? 

‘In the reign of Ptolemy, in the priesthood of Menelaus son of Lamachus, the 5th 
year, in the month Dius. Epimenes, Athenian, has sold to Timocles, Chalcidian, 30 
artabae of wheat, and Epimenes has received the price from Timocles concurrently with 
this contract. Epimenes shall deliver the corn to Timocles out of the coming new crops 
from the threshing-floor in the month Panemus free from all adulteration by royal ... 
measure at the village of Peroé; and if he fails to deliver it Epimenes shall forfeit to 
Timocles as the value of each artaba 4 drachmae, and Timocles shall have the right of 
execution upon the property of Epimenes and may enforce it in any manner he chooses. 
This contract shall be valid whenever produced by Timocles or any other person on 
Timocles’ behalf, executing it as aforesaid. The witnesses are ..., Dionysius, Aristomachus, 
Meli..., Stasippus, C... us. The keeper of the contract is Dionysius son of Heracles.’ 

2, Aiov is restored here and in |. 17 as best suited to the space. 

4. dodéro here refers to the delivery of the corn. The use of the same verb in two 
different senses within three lines is somewhat awkward. 

5. Since the month Panemus coincided with the period of harvest, it must have 
partially or completely corresponded with one of the Egyptian months Pharmouthi, Pachon, 
or Pauni. For the significance of this equation cf. App. i. p. 339. 

6. yor: cf. 90. 11, where this obscure measure apparently occurs again, pérpwx xoe 
tat... In the present passage yorrov or xwirov might be read and explained as a mis- 

84 (6). CONTRACTS 245 

spelling for Kwirov, but 90 shows that this is inadmissible. The form suggests a connexion 
with xovs, but since the xods was a liquid measure, that explanation also is unsuitable. 

8-9. 4 drachmae (cf. 65. 24) represent twice the normal value of an artaba of wheat 
in Middle Egypt; cf. 100. 6, 110. 6, P. Petrie III. 80. 16, &c. In 99. 14 the price is 
2 dr. 1 obol, and in 90. 15 the penalty value is fixed at 5 dr. For corn transported to 
and sold at Alexandria the high price of 4 dr. 5 ob. is found in 110. 11. 

12. tavta: OF Tavta? 

14. The ovyypapopvraé (cf. P. Tebt. 105. 53, note) here occupies the second position 
in the list of witnesses, as in 96. 12. He is sometimes placed first, e.g. P. Tebt. 104. 34, 
105. 53, but there was no regular order ; in P. Petrie II. 47. 30-3 the cvyypapopidaé comes 
fourth or fifth, The name MeA{c. vos (?) probably recurs on the verso |. 30, but the 
termination is not decipherable. 

30-31. If ’Emysévo vs and T(imo'kde[ous are rightly read, a fourth pair of names is lost at 
the beginning of these lines. 

84 (4). Date sy a Protemaic Era (?). 
Mumny 5. 2:4 X 60-4 cml. B.C. 272-1 (?). Prats VII. 

From the same cartonnage as 84 (a) comes a fragment bearing the following 
remarkable date from the commencement of a document. 

(“Erovs) p pnvos 

The writing is large and clear, and there is not the faintest doubt about the 
figure. But according to the accepted chronology, Philadelphus, to whom 
the Canon of Ptolemy assigns 38 years, died in his 39th year (cf. p. 364); 
and the only Ptolemy who reached his 40th year, Euergetes II, is of course 
quite out of the question here. Hence without disturbing to an unjustifiable 
extent the ordinary view of the length of Philadelphus’ reign 84(6) cannot be 
referred to the 40th year, whether revenue or regnal (cf. App. ii), of the second 
Ptolemy, so that apparently this date refers to some era. An era kata Atovicrov 
which started from the 1st year of Philadelphus is cited by Ptolemy (cf. Bouché- 
Leclercq, Hist. des Lagides, 1. p. 99); but from the company in which the 
fragment was found and the character of the hand a date in the first half of 
the reign of Philadelphus would be much more suitable. Such a date may 
perhaps be obtained by identifying this era with that found on a large series of 
coins struck in years ranging from the 42nd to the 117th. Svoronos (Les Monnaies 
de Ptolémée II qui portent dates, pp. 52 sqq., Ta vopicwata trav TroAdeualor, 
pp- 195°sqq.) supposes that the starting-point is the year B.C. 311-10, in which 


the death of Alexander IV left Soter practically the monarch of Egypt, and that 
the coins come from Cyprus or Palestine. Svoronos’ classification of Ptolemaic 
coins marks a great advance upon that of Poole, but many of his proposed dates 
for different series are very uncertain (cf. G. Macdonald’s criticisms in the 
footnotes to the section concerning Ptolemaic coins in Catal. of the Greek Coins 
in the Hunterian Collection, vol. iii, and A. Willers’ review of Svoronos in Lit¢er. 
Zentralbl. 1905, nos. 17-8 and 19); and with regard to this series in particular 
several of the arguments which originally led Svoronos to fix upon B.C. 311 as 
the starting-point (Les Monnaies, /. c.) are tacitly (and quite rightly) abandoned 
in Té vouiopara, 7.c. But an era starting from B.C. 311 is also attested by two 
inscriptions, one from Cyprus, the other from Tyre (C. I. Sem. I. 109; noma 
37, no. 7; cf. Strack, Rhein. Museum, liii, p. 417), and the commencement of the 
rule of Soter in Paros is dated in the year 311-10 in the recently discovered 
fragment of the Parian Chronicle (Ath. Mittheil. xxii. p. 188). The 40th year 
of this era brings us to the year B. C. 272-1, which is a thoroughly suitable date 
for the fragment ; though the appearance in an Egyptian papyrus of a system of 
dating of which the other examples are all external to Egypt itself is certainly 

85. Loan or SEED-CORN. 

Mummy 13. 26-1 XQ cm. B.C. 261 (260). 

Contract for the loan of seed of different kinds from the government, as 
represented by the nomarch Harimouthes (cf. 40, introd.), to the lessee of a 
kKAjjpos BactAKds, i.e. land which had been cleruchic but had reverted to the State, 
upon which see introd. to 89 and 52. 26, note. The loan was to be repaid after 
the next harvest before the rent; cf. 87, where an advance of seed is made 
without any such provision. The lacunae are supplied from 150, a duplicate 
copy of the contract. 

Baowdevovtos [I7odepaiou Tov 
IIroAcpaiov Kai tod viod IIro\A\e- 
paiov (€rous) Kd ed lepéws ‘Apiorovi- 
kov Tod Ilepiddov ‘Adefadvdpou 

5 kal Oedv ‘Adehpav kar[n\pépouv ‘Apot- 
vons Piradérpov Xalpéas| tHs ‘Ani- 
ov pnvos Mecopy. exfee IIjaou T.. 

85. CONTRACTS 247 

amos lepeds [...... | mapa TIldpizos 
SicvBatov rod mapla| ‘Apipové[o|y rob 

10 vouadpxov €K THS KdTwW ToTapXi- 
[as] 79 yolalgley Alivpla] Kad dvd{Ajo- 
pa onéppa els rd Ke (ros) els Tov 
Pidok—evov KANpov BacidiKov 
tav Tedéorov (mupav) p, KpiO(av) Any 

15 al (mupav) Ky, ddrup(@v) E¢ (fuiov) al (rupav) K¢, Tod malvTos 
els mupav (apTaBas) gq, atrov Kabapov 
adodov amd wavT@y peTpHoet 
Oixatat pérpwr Ta. (EvvEeakatetkool)X(olwlKw1) TOL 
mpos TO XaAKovV. arropeTpnod- 

20 Tw 6€ ITaois eis Ta Baoiri- 
Ka dmodbxia Tob Ke (€rous) Ta ExPo- 
pla THS yns eis Hv eiAndev TO 
omépua Kata THY picbwow 
€x mAnpous pnbéva b7rddoyov 

25 molovpevos aBpoxov, Kal 7d o7ép- 
pa 0 eidnghey mpbtepov Tav Eexopi- 
@y ey véeor, 

2 lines of demotic. 

18. «6 above x Pap. 

‘In the reign of Ptolemy the son of Ptolemy, and his son Ptolemy, the 24th year, the 
priest of Alexander and the gods Adelphi being Aristonicus son of Perilaus, the canephorus 
of Arsinoé Philadelphus being Charea daughter of Apius, in the month of Mesore. Pasis, 
son of . . ., priest, has received from Paris son of Sisybaeus, agent of Harimouthes the 
nomarch from the lower toparchy, as seed for the 25th year, being included in the lists of 
receipts and expenditure, for the royal holding of Philoxenus in the (troop?) of Telestes 
40 artabae of wheat, 384 of barley which are equivalent to 23 of wheat, and 67% of olyra 
which are equivalent to 27 of wheat, making a total of 90 artabae of wheat, in grain pure 
and unadulterated in any way, according to just measurement by the 29-choenix measure 
on the bronze standard. Pasis shall deliver at the royal granaries in the 25th year the rent 
of the land for which he has received the seed, in accordance with the terms of the lease, in 
full, making no deduction for unwatered land ; and he shall return the seed, which he has 
received, before the rent, from the new crops. 

‘(Signed in demotic) I, P...son of ..., have received the stock above written.’ 

2. tov viov Iro)'euaiov: the question who was this ‘son of Ptolemy,’ associated with 
Philadelphus from the rgth (cf. 100, introd.) to the 27th years of his reign, has been much 


disputed ; cf. Bouché-Leclereq, 7s. des Lagides, I. p. 183. We prefer the view of Wiedemann 
and Mahaffy that he was Ptolemy Euergetes I. 

7. tov “Antos is unsatisfactory, especially as there is a lacuna after iepevs, which may have 
contained the name of the god... . ams is more probably the name of the father of Maovs, 
but it is apparently not ’Ayodamos Or Kopoaros. 

8. dpiros: this is unlikely to be the Paris in 64-5, which refer to the Arsinoite nome. 

II. 70 ypla|plev «.7.A.: the reading is assured by 150. The meaning of the phrase seems 
to be that this loan of seed duly appeared in the official statement of accounts; cf. 48. 4. 

13. Pirokevov: cf. '75. 5, note. 

14. tav Tedeorov: if these words apply to ®Aogevov (i.e. ‘of Telestes’ troop’) they are 
out of place, though cf. 109. 4-5, note. It is probable that they here qualify «Ajpov BaciAcxdy 
and serve to indicate the locality in some way, though Telestes was in any case probably 
a military officer of high rank; cf. 99. 7-8 olix(o|vduos TeAéorov and note ad loc. We refer 
Tedésrov to the common nominative TeAé€orns, though the dative TeAéorwe apparently occurs 
in 58. 4. 

14-5. The ratio of the value of wheat to barley is the usual one of 5: 3, to that of 
olyra 5: 2, as in P. Tebt. 246 and 261, and approximately also in 119. 16 ; cf. 102. 2, note. 

18. An artaba of 29 choenices occurs also in P. Grenf. I. 18. 20. The mention of 
mpos TO xadxovv in the present passage suggests that this artaba may be identical with the 
artaba yadxo in P. Brit. Mus. 265; cf. '74. 2, note. 

24. wmddoyos here is clearly a masculine substantive, as in 29. 26; in the Tebtunis 
papyri of the next century the substantival form, wherever its gender can be distinguished, is 
ro trddoyov. In P. Petrie II. 30 (a). 5 and 18 eis rots imoddyous the substantive tméAoyos may 
also be meant. 

28-9. The demotic signature has been translated for us by Mr. Griffith, P... can 
hardly be other than Pasis, though that name is apparently not recognizable. 

86. Loan or Corn. 

Mummy A. Fr. (a) 13-5 X 7-4, (0) 4:8 x 4-6 cm. B.C. 248 (247). 

Two acknowledgements with the same formula (or very likely one 
acknowledgement in duplicate) of loans of 15 artabae of olyra, another specimen 
belonging to the series being 129, where the borrower is a Mysian of the 
Epigone;.cf. also 124-6. The lender in each case, Docimus, occupied an 
official position in connexion with the corn-revenue (cf. 76); and it is not 
unlikely that the loans are for seed, though this is not stated as in 85 and 87. 
Since repayment was to take place after the harvest of the 38th year (of 
Philadelphus), the papyrus was no doubt written in the 37th year or early in 
the 38th. Lines 14-26 are perhaps in a different hand. 

Er. "(@) : 
[apraBas dexarjevre, ITarns ‘Appwotros Afojkt- 

[ravras b€ alo. adrodécw 15 Hol yal, E apa 
Jou 5 H@L xaipev. Ex Tapa 

86. CONTRACTS 249 

3 A , hen’ ’ ~ ~ > ~ b] 4 

eu pnvi Aatctor Tar ev ToL gov odvpav apTraBas Sde- 
dydbw. Kal TpLakxooTau kamevTe, Tavtas d€ cot 
a4 ~ ‘al \ SS b) 06 > \ Ve, 

5 €Tel aiTov Kabapoyv Kal amo0@ow eu pnvi Aacior 
adorov pétpar Bactrc- TOL EV TOL dydbw@t Kai TpLa- 
K@L Kal amroKaTacThow 20 KoloT@L ETEL ceiToy Kaba- 
€mt oknvijy tois idtos a- [pov plérpar Baoidika: €. | 

7) 7] p lad p Felis 
7 SN X\ ‘\ 
yvnhopacw. €av d€ pi) ‘ ‘ ; 

10 dm006 azoteiow cot [.]] Fr. (4). &ppwoo. (&rovs) A... 
TElnv ExdoTns apTa- AT ENG plos El ay neces oe Kv- 
Bns Spaxpas dvo. pnvatos THs enleyovas, 

oe See, , € ~ 
Eppwco. 25 exédevoeu ple 6 Ilaris 
Ve ce aire een er sass 
I-13. ‘( ... to Docimus, greeting. I have received from you) 15 artabae of olyra, 

and I will return it to you in the month Daisius of the 38th year in grain that is pure and 
unadulterated, measured by the royal measure, and I will restore it at the cabin at my own 
expense. If I fail to repay it, I will forfeit to you the value of each artaba, 2 drachmae. 

3. Aaoto.: in the 38th year of Philadelphus this month probably corresponded 
approximately to Pauni, since in the 36th year it began on or about Pachon 29; cf. 
App. i. 

tau: tov could equally well be read both here and in I. 19, but would have no construc- 
tion. a is omitted in 129. 

8. oxnvyy: cf.a second century B.c. papyrus in the Louvre published by Revillout, 
Meélanges, p. 335, which is a receipt for 2 talents 2500 drachmae of copper paid by 
a banker eis ripny oivou mad |acov dare Uno oKnriy owvov kepauior eixoor mévte. Revillout translates 
oxy there ‘tent,’ and supposes that the wine was destined for soldiers, whose pay is the 
subject of another receipt made out to the same bankers. This interpretation, however, is 
very doubtful, and in any case there is no indication that the olyra in 86 was required for 
military purposes. Judging by the use of oxy in 38. 7, we prefer to translate it here also 
‘cabin,’ and to suppose the phrase emi oxnvfy to indicate that the grain was to be repaid on 
board a government corn-transport. 

12. Two drachmae are the penalty value of an artaba of olyra also in 102. 4 and 
124 ; cf. 90. 15, where it seems to be 4 drachmae, and 102. 2, note. 

21. The letters following Bacwduxéu are certainly not «ai (cf. 1. 7). Perhaps édy, sc. 
d€ py amodéu k.7.A., Should be read, but Ba, sc. a repetition of Bactdixau, is possible. 

25-6. This sentence differs from the usual formula eypaya ouvrdéavtos (Marijros) found 
at this period, e.g. in 124. The word following rv is apparently not olvyypapjy or 
al moxnu. 



Mummy 126. 17X98 cm. B.C. 256 (255). 

An acknowledgement by several cleruchs, each of whose holdings contained 
25 arourae, to a sitologus, of the receipt of 793 artabae of wheat and 33% artabae 
of barley for seed; cf. 85-6. Nothing is said about repayment (cf. 85. 25 and 
86. 2), and probably the seed was in this case a present rather than a loan from 
the government ; cf. P. Tebt. I. pp. 226-7. Since it was required for the sowing 
of the 3oth year (of Philadelphus), the papyrus was no doubt written late in the 
29th or early in the 3oth year. 

[eee veoyiseal eects Notterre sete ‘Hpa- 
xrelOov kai Hpf...... 
Mevioxov kai Zrf...... 
pov (eikoourevTadpoupot) Exe malpa... 

5 Tov aiToAdyou eis olds Elx(o- 
fey meplt THY TOY Ia oro- 
popwv KAnpous o7éppla 
els TO A (Eros) muplo]i ێBdo- 
pynkiov|ra évvéa tuvov 

10 Téraprov Kal Kp.Ojs Tpid- 
KovTa TpeEls TéTApTOY, 
[clirov Kabalpoy pérpos 
mapadiolyikois, Kal o[dOjéev 

’ ~ 

4. (etxoourevtapovpor) corr. from ex. 

«... son of Heraclides and Her ... son of Meniscus and Ze... son of..., 
holders of 25 arourae, acknowledge that we have received from ..., sitologus, for the 
holdings which we possess at the village of the Pastophori, as seed for the 3oth year 
79% artabae of wheat and 334 artabae of barley, in pure corn measured by the receiving 
measures, and we make no complaint.’ 

4. eixoourevtdpovpor are not mentioned elsewhere except in the name of the Arsinoite 
village "IBiwy Eixoourevrapovpor. 

6. thy tov Taloro|pspov, sc. Kounv, does not occur apart from this passage (except 
perhaps in 118. 6; cf. note ad /oc.), and it is uncertain to which nome it belonged. 

12. perpos mapad\olxixois : more usually called doyrxa ; cf. 74. 2, note. 


extremely small addition to the rate of 24 obols for a stater found in the case 
of those taxes in which the government accepted copper at par is in accordance 
with the evidence of P. Par, 62. v. 19, that in the second century B.C. the (urnpa 
was an avi mpds xadxov icdvouor. The extra % Obol per stater or approximately 
I per cent., which is levied in the Hibeh texts, probably corresponds to the extra 
charges of 1 per cent. for emtoxevy and 2 per cent. for transport which are 
mentioned in connexion with the (urmpa in the Paris papyrus. Above each 
receipt is a brief summary, and at the end of each are a few words of demotic. 
The writing is in most cases, including 106, across the fibres. 

(“Ezovs) B ‘A6d{p A, (Spaxpal)] x. 

(vous) B 'AOdp X. wérreoKev 
emt 7d eu SeBiyi AoyEevTHpLov 
700 Kwirov Tdéowr tpare- 
5 ¢itnt Kat Sroronr Sox- 
HaorTnt mapa Apevddrov ro(8) mapa TaeuBéous 
ex Taddn (urnpas els rov 
Addp yxa(AKob) es KO (réraptoy ?) (Spaypas) eikoat, ¥ Ga? 
and hand [alpévz[ols Awptovos. 
1 line of demotic. 

6. apevdwrov ro(v) rapa above the line. 

‘The 2nd year, Athur 30: 20 dr. The 2nd year, Athur 30. Harendotes, agent of 
Taémbes from Talaé, has paid into the collecting office of the Koite toparchy at Phebichis, 
to Pason, banker, and Stotoétis, controller, for the beer-tax on account of Athur twenty 
drachmae of copper at 24% obols (for a siater), total 20. In the presence of Dorion.’ 

8. «d (réraprov): very little of the 8 is left; but the traces are inconsistent with e or = 
and cf. 107. 7, where 8 is certain. There is more doubt about the fraction ; all that 
remains is a piece of a horizontal stroke joining the sign for drachmae. If it represents 
% obol, which is usually written “|, the writer must on reaching the end of the horizontal 
stroke have drawn his pen back a little way before making the down stroke, just as he usually 
does in writing r. The only alternative is to read (jppr@BeXor), but we hesitate to introduce 
a rate which would be necessarily different from those found in 107. 7 (cf. note) and 138; 
and if, as is likely, the rate is the same in all three cases, 242 is the only suitable number. 


4. Aiov: the day of the month was very likely not given (cf. e.g. 84 (a) and 85), 
in which case there was probably a blank space before éddvecer. Loius probably 
corresponded approximately to Pauni in the 23rd year ; cf. App. i. 

6. |aiox: probably Kupnv|atar (cf. 89. 6, &c.) or perhaps “Iovd jatar (cf. 96. 4). 

>. For dua rie ovyypapie cf. 84 (a). 4. Kai dxéxer probably occurred earlier in the line. 

9. This line refers to the interest, and rékov is to be restored somewhere in the lacuna. 
kara piva ékaojrov in |. 10 also seems to refer to interest, and on the analogy of e.g. 

P. Grenf. Il. 18. 16 we might restore xai rod imepreadvros xpdvov at the beginning of |. 10 
(cf. P. Petrie III. 55 (a). 13-4); but a mention of the contingency of failure to repay the 
loan before éav| d€ pi) drodéu in |. 12 would be a curious inversion. 

II. €v 7) pepats K.T.A.: cf. 89. 14. 

13. jpuddtuov might be restored after droredro on the analogy of later loans, e. g. 
P. Grenf. I. 18; but in the third century B.c. the penalties for failure to repay a loan were 
often on a higher scale; cf. 84 (a). 9 and 90. 15, where the penalty value of wheat is twice 
its ordinary price, and 80. 19-20, note. Hence both here and in P. Petrie III. 55 (@)-a53e 
where the editors supply jpiddcov, didody is more likely. 

gs9. Loan or Money. 

Mummy 83. Height 17-5 cm. B.C. 239 (238). 

A contract for the loan of 500 drachmae of silver from a woman, Theodote, 
to Zenion; cf. 88. The loan was without interest, probably on account of the 
special conditions attached, which the mutilation of the papyrus renders obscure. 
Several insertions have been made in the text, and a blank space has been left 
ri oy ae ty 

The restoration of ll. 2-5 is based on two other fragmentary contracts not 
yet published. The only name concerning which there is any doubt is 
‘Ovduactos. ’Ovopal is confirmed by one of the other contracts, but ’Ovopaxptitos 
is a possible alternative. The traces in I. 2 would suit « rather better than o, but 
there seems to be insufficient space for pu. 

Baowrebovr{os IItodepu\atov tod IToAepaiov 

kat ‘Apowéns Oe av ‘AdcApav| (Erovs) n Ep Lelpews Ovo pjao- 
rov Tod IIvpylwvos ’Adeédvdpou Kal| Oedv Adedpay Kal Oe- 

av Evepyer(av xavnpdpov ‘Apow)ins Piradedrgou ‘A pxe- 
otpdrins Ths Krnotkdéous) pnvds Iepitiov ev Owd- 

Oe[e| Told "Ogupulyxiz[ov. eddveiwe Oeodorn Aéovros Kupnvaia 

T® |v Zwirov idiwrov 


\ 4 , r ~ > ~ ‘x 4 
pera kupiov A€ovTos |.....-- lov Tov avins TaTpos Znviove 

Aewiolu) trav A.'.|..). . tOtdr\ne droKov apyuptou 6pOadLo- 

S89" -EONERAGLS 253 

palvolvs évavritov tev broye ypappévoy paptipav (dpaxpdas) ¢, 

UiGee euereeel ete eae a ietsets anette -||) AOVOY. TOU, EmtGANUCY 7.06. au= 
[7He 20 letters | témov avtt tev mevTaKo- 
‘ciwv dpaxpav as eine mapa Oeoddrns emi Tod 
[éy 21 letters wou emi tod évfev} “O€updy- 

Oc0dd7r]n Zyviarvt 
7, >? LON 7 ’ € ?, , 
[xov mwoAG...... ... @b ov ay) mpoeirn ev tpuépats déka, 

15 [avy O€ py ...... pera Tlas mpoyeypappévas pepas 
(amoreicdto Znviov Ocodd|rne 7d ddveov ras d (Spaypas) 
(Ourdody Kal 4) mpaéis erro! mapa Znviwvos 
[wpacoo... kata 76 Oidypalupa. % SE ovyypagy de 
[kupia EoT@ ob av émipépytal.| pdptupes Evpupé[Sjor . . 

On the verso 

20 ovyypapi . . on 

3. The second rev added above the line. 4. v Of evepyer|wy corr. from : ? 

‘In the reign of Ptolemy the son of Ptolemy and Arsinoé, gods Adelphi, the 8th year, 
Onomastus son of Pyrgon being priest of Alexander and the gods Adelphi and the gods 
Euergetae, Archestrate daughter of Ctesicles being canephorus of Arsinoé Philadelphus, in 
the month Peritius, at Tholthis in the Oxyrhynchite nome. Theodote, Cyrenean, daughter 
of Leon, with her guardian her father Leon son of ..., private of Zoilus’ troop, has lent to 
Zenion son of Dinias, private of A ...’s troop, 500 drachmae of silver produced to view in 
the presence of the witnesses below written, without interest. In lieu of the 500 drachmae 
which he has received from Theodote (Zenion shall pay on account) of the sum imposed 
upon her ..., either at the (collecting office?) at... or at Oxyrhynchus within 10 days 
from the date on which Theodote gives Zenion notice to do so. If he does not (pay) after 
the period aforesaid, Zenion shall forfeit to Theodote twice the amount of the loan of 
500 drachmae, and shall have the right of execution upon Zenion in accordance 
with the edict. This contract shall be valid wheresoever produced. The witnesses are 
Eurymedon ...’ 

5- Hepiriov: this month probably corresponded in the 8th year of Euergetes to parts of 
Mecheir and Phamenoth ; cf. App. i. 

8. droxa is the usual adverb in the later contracts. It is not possible to have a v before 
éroxov, which therefore cannot be used adjectivally here. 

10-2. eni3AnOévros ail rie (?) and dyti tev revtaxogiay Spaypav appear to indicate that 
Zenion was undertaking to perform some service for Theodote in consideration of the loan, 
and this would well account for the absence not only of interest, but of a provision for 
repayment; cf. the next note. 


12-4. These lines do not seem to contain provisions for the repayment of the loan 
(cf. 88. 11), for it is very difficult to see where droddrw x.r.A. can be brought in. Probably, 
therefore, the word lost in ]. 15 after wy is not drodé but the verb which occurred in 1. ro. 

13. Perhaps Aoyeurnp|iov: cf. 106, introd. 

17. For durdotv cf. 830. 19-20 and 88. 13, notes. A space is left for the name of the 
person to whom right of execution was reserved. Perhaps there was some doubt as to 
whether it should be Theodote herself or her xivpcos. 

18. xara 7d diaypa|ppa: cf. 90. 16, 91. 13, and 84, introd. 

19. For the supplement cf. 90. 20, &c. 

20-1. This endorsement looks like the title of the document, but we have failed to 
find a suitable reading of the latter part of it. It would perhaps be just possible to read 
avyypapo(pudaé) “Hpwdns with Sapariwy below, and suppose that these are the names of two of 
the witnesses, but such an abbreviation of cvyypahopvAaé is not satisfactory, nor is the word 
itself likely in this position. On the back of the fragment which contains the beginnings of 
ll. r-1o0 there are also traces of ink, which may represent names. 

90. Lease oF LAND. 

Mummy ro. I1-l X 16-6 cm. B.C. 2225(220): 

A contract for the lease for one year of an island, which formed part of 
a cleruchic holding in the Oxyrhynchite nome. The rent is fixed at 4 artabae of 
olyra in addition, apparently, to a quarter of the wheat grown; but whether 
wheat constituted the whole or only a portion of the crop is not stated, neither 
is the acreage of the land specified. The lease was drawn up in the 25th year 
of Euergetes, the latest certain date in this volume; cf. note on |. 2. The 
papyrus is in parts much discoloured and worn, and the small cursive hand 
is in consequence sometimes very difficult to read. The verso is covered with 
plaster, which, owing to the extremely brittle condition of the document, we have 
not ventured to remove. 

(Baothevovros IrolAepaiov [rlod IIrodepalov k[ai Apowvdéns Oed\v Adedpav 

((Erous) méumrov kal] elkootod ep lepéws Awoibéov rod |'Apimtdou ‘Adje- 

kai Oedv "AldeApaly Kal Oedv Evepyerév xavnpdpov [Apowdns ida)- 
déAgou Bepevi- 

kns THs Tv0layyé|\ov pnvos Topmiaiov ev Odd sob “Ogupuy xi jrov. 

5 els eviavtov [€va olndpor [eval] Kat Oepicpdy Eva amd Tob almrépou Tob 

1A ao ‘ ’ 
€V T\@l EKT@L KA El- 




90. CONTRACTS 255 

KooTar erer Alrddwpo|s Maxeda\y [aly DPirwvos dexavixdis Evx( pare 
Ae 1. @t THS Emlyov7s 
éx tod idiov KAjpouv Thy vagov thy éu Méva rod Ogvupvyxirov voluou 
Xx z , 7 me SF ; [ 7 } 
TAY THS Xépoov dowy ap [Blpéxwouy ey yewpeT|plas explopiov......... Ne 


dptaBav teccdplaly, (ra dé ex|popia Ta ovyyeypappeéria amoddca Ev)- 
Kpadtns A.dd- 

pot eu pnvi Barv[d\tkar tod €Bdduou Kat exoorod érouls oitov Kabapdly 

Tor ga. . Teov [ 

Tov yevopevoy [ely THe y[N\e méeTpar you Stxalar peltphoe St]kalar, mapa- 
oTNO| a- 

tw (de) eis Ta Aifodd|pov idfolt] avaddpari, dé7w bE Kal ‘Tob mupod, 7d 

Hépos [at toiro mapjactycdtw els 7a Atoddpov idlalt dvaddépalri. ea 
d€ pi a- 

moda. (kata 7a yely[palupéva amoticdtw Evxpdz[ns Also[Selplol tipijy 
THS apTa- 

Bns éxdo[tns tev olAvpdv Spaxpas récoapes Tob St mupod Spalxpmjas 
mév7[e,, Kal 

% mpagiis Erlrw Atoddpat mapa Evxpdérovs mpdo(c)ovtt Kata 7d Oula- 

9 O€ Kaddpn oto Aoddpov. BeBaiotrw de Atd{c}dwpos Kal Tovs 

Kapmovs Kal & peuicboxev, cay S€ py BeBaidont Kata Ta yeypappéva 
am oreloadT@ 

Avidwpos Eixpdree ei jripov apyuptov dpaypas mevtaxoclas, cap py (te Ba- 

gidtkovy K@AvpA ylevnTa.| 1 Se cuvyypapy de Kupla Eotw ob dv ém- 
pépnt a. 

pdprupes Burma. . 2... kjat KodXas Kupnvaio of S{vo] idiarar Tap . 
[ecranne oe 

MONKUOLEUS XO IE ces Ilélpons tav Pitwvos Kronos KadXxparous 


256 TTL Ae VIR 

Climate mom va || emeterne ees |s Opaé Evkrelov ‘Appoviov Kupnyatos 
TAS | emelyovi|s. 

‘In the reign of Ptolemy son of Ptolemy and Arsinoé, gods Adelphi, the 25th year, the 
priest of Alexander and the gods Adelphi and the gods Euergetae being Dositheus son of 
Drimylus, the canephorus of Arsinoé Philadelphus being Berenice daughter of Pythangelus, 
in the month Gorpiaeus, at Tholthis in the Oxyrhynchite nome. Diodorus, Macedonian and 
decurion of the troop of Philon, has leased for one year, for one seed-time and harvest, from 
the seed-time in the 26th year to Eucrates,... of the Epigone, out of his own holding the 
island at Mena in the Oxyrhynchite nome all except any parts of the dry land which may 
be irrigated according to the survey, at a rent... of 4 artabae of olyra. The rent 
agreed upon Eucrates shall pay to Diodorus in the month Xandicus of the 27th year in pure 
and unadulterated grain grown upon the land by true... measure according to just measure- 
ment, and shall deliver it at the house of Diodorus at his own expense. He shall further 
give the fourth part of the wheat, which he shall also deliver at Diodorus’ house at his own 
expense. If he do not pay as aforesaid Eucrates shall forfeit to Diodorus for the value 
of each artaba of olyra 4 drachmae, and for the wheat 5 drachmae, and Diodorus shail 
have the right of execution upon Eucrates in accordance with the edict. The straw shall 
belong to Diodorus. Diodorus shall guarantee the ... crops and what he has leased, or if 
he fail to do so Diodorus shall forfeit to Eucrates a penalty of 500 drachmae of silver, if 
there be no obstacle on the part of the State. This contract is valid wherever produced. 
The witnesses are Eupa... and Collas, Cyreneans, both privates, Pam... , Chalcidian, 
Chi..., Persian of Philon’s troop, Ctesippus son of Callicrates..., Straton son of..., 
Thracian, Euclion son of Ammonius, Cyrenean of the Epigone.’ 

2. The names of the priest and canephorus coincide with those of the 25th year, as 
known from an unpublished Tebtunis papyrus and a demotic contract; cf. p. 376. The 
period of the lease commenced from the sowing of the 26th year (1. 5), i.e. the autumn; so 
the present document being dated in Gorpiaeus which probably = Choiak-Tubi (cf. App. 1), 
i.e. about February, of the 25th year, must have been drawn at some time in advance. If, 
as seems to be not improbable, the 25th and the other years mentioned by the papyrus are 
Macedonian years beginning on Dius 1, which at this period fell near the end of Mecheir, 
Gorpiaeus fell near the end of the 25th year, and the interval between the date of 90 and the 
sowing of the 26th year was at least 7 months. On the analogy of P. Tebt. 71, which 
shows that the sowing of crops in the Fayfim had just commenced on Nov. 9g, B.c. 114, the 
oxdpos in]. 5 probably means November, which at the end of Euergetes’ reign began on 
Thoth 15 and approximately coincided with Daisius. On this view the interval between 
the date of 90 and the sowing of the 26th year is 9 months, and the harvest would be 
completed by Xandicus (equivalent to Epeiph—Mesore, i.e. about September) of the 27th 
year (1. 10). We forbear to enter on a discussion of the complications which would ensue 
if the 25th and other years in 90 do not begin on Dius 1, or if ékrov be read in place of 
néuntou inl. 2. The very slight traces at the beginning of the line can be reconciled with 
either; and if 90 be assigned to the 26th year instead of the 25th, Dositheus and 
Berenice may be supposed to have held office in both these years. There is a parallel 
for this in the case of the priests of the gth and roth years, but rd 8, which would then be 
expected after Ivé[ayye]kov in |. 4, is absent; cf. p. 374. It is, moreover, very doubtful 
whether Euergetes actually reached a 26th year except on the revenue system of calculating 
the king’s years, which is not at all likely to have been employed in a contract mentioning 
only Macedonian months; cf. App. ii. 


In the Tebtunis papyrus the name of Dositheus’ father may be read as either ApipvAou 
or Apiwidov. According to Spiegelberg’s decipherment the demotic has Tripirus, which is 
in favour of ApemtAov. On the other hand that name is unknown, whereas Apipddos is 
attested (Luc. Gall. 14). 

7. twos as an epithet of kAjpos does not imply full proprietary rights, as Meyer, 
Fleerwesen, p. 42, assumes. All that need be meant here is that Diodorus was letting his 
own land, not sub-letting some one else’s. Other instances, e. g. 105. 5, are capable of 
a similar explanation. 

8. Above exdjopiov an insertion has been made, but the letters are too indistinct to 
be read. 

II. perpar yor: cf. 84.6, note. The letters after ra: are very small and illegible, but 
do not suit Baowexés (84. 6) or @noavpod. An erasure below is not likely, though the writing - 
is somewhat blurred. ype[rpyjoer dc\kaiae is not very satisfactory, for the supplement hardly 
fills the lacuna, and a conjunction is missing. The final a of 6|kaéa is more like a x, but 
to read ds] «ad and suppose that the a of rapaorno|a\rm was written twice is not an attractive 
solution, although the scribe makes other mistakes, e. g. rpdcovr: in |. 16. 

15. olAvpov: cf. 1. 8, though there too the reading is doubtful. svpéy is possible in 
both places, but would be very unsuitable in ]. 15 with rod d€ mupod immediately following. 
4 drachmae an artaba is twice the ordinary penalty price of olyra; cf. 102. 2, note. 

17. kat... may be a participle like xaraywopevous or some adjectival phrase with kara. 
The remains of the letters are too faint for recognition. 

19. Spaxpyas wevraxooias: cf. P. Petrie III. 74 (a). 14-5, which is to be restored on the 
analogy of the present passage. The 500 drachmae for failure in the BeSaiwors was no 
doubt a conventional penalty, and this suggests a new explanation of P. Amh, 43. 12, where 
it is stipulated that if the borrower did not repay a loan of ro artabae of wheat he should 
forfeit tiny Spaypas mevraxocias. The largeness of the sum is no longer a valid reason 
for supposing that the drachmae are not silver, but copper, and represent the price of 
a single artaba. On the other hand, if the 500 drachmae in P. Amh. 43. 12 is a 
conventional penalty, it is somewhat remarkable that they are not stated to be silver and 
that ryny, not exiror, is used. 

For the clause éap py [re x.r.d. cf. 91. 5 sqq., where the same phrase occurs, also in 
reference to an émirmov., Similarly in P. Petrie Il. 44, which is rather a contract of 
partnership than an ordinary lease, ll. 13 sqq. may now be restored eav 6€ py [BeBamowor 
kata Ta yeypappéva| arotecdt@caly Mny|rpod@par Kai "Emxovpar |dpaxpas mevtaxocias Kal €oTw 7) 
kalrox Myrtpodalpar kali "Emixovpar ea pn tlt] Baowdexdv Kodupa yévnrar,| tov 5€ Kapm| dv 
kupieverooay... In 91. 8-10 a further provision is made in case the k@Avpya did occur ; 
according to 90 and P. Petrie Il. 44, if the B«B8aiwo1s was prevented by any action of the 
government, the penalty was simply foregone. 

22. If X..{ is a proper name, the number of witnesses is seven, as in 96. 12sqq, But 
since Né|pons is uncertain, it is possible that yi... Sidevos is all part of the description of 
Pam... the Chalcidian; |prns, e.g. rerd|prns might be read. A less probable method of 
reducing the number from seven to six would be to treat maz... in |. 21 as part of the 
description of the two preceding witnesses and XaAx\.|Sevs as a personal name. 

23-4. Kupnvaios and [em|yovns are both very doubtful. There would be room for about 
six letters at the end of the line after Kupnvaios. 


91. Lease or LAND. 

Mummy A. 1l-2X 14-5. B.C. 244-3 (243-2) or 219-8 (218-7). 

Conclusion of a contract for a lease of land from Eupolis to Cleopatra at 
a rent of 30 artabae of corn, with the names of the witnesses, who were six or seven 
in number, and part of the protocol of what was probably a duplicate copy on 
the same papyrus; cf. 90. The handwriting, which is extremely cursive, 
resembles that of P. Petrie I. 18 (1), and the 4th year in 1.19 no doubt refers 
to either Euergetes or Philopator, more probably the former. 

[> g4uletters ] - [. Edmore 

[eae a eS adjorov perpnoe Sexallat] «|. . 

fh Sao amod|ooe K[deor|atpa EvrolAe\: |. «| . 

es ee Jac{eclacl+ es) le. eas Kapmous cel moral. 
ras aoe Hitec wo. [.J.v-[Je...¥ kal & pepicboxer. cay dé py 

[BeBardont Klara [ra] yeypappéva drorecdtw Kd c0- 
[wdrpla Ev{mdj\er émiripov dpyupiov Spaxpas €xarov 
[éav] ph te Baoidixov KOdupa yévynTa. €dv J€ TL BactdrKov 
[ko Avupa yevntat drodétw Krcord|\rpa Evora TaS Tpia- 
10 [Kora aptdBas tay mupdy, av S€ pi) amoda. (droTEcdTo 
[Tipliy THs apTdBys éxdotns TaY TrUpaY dpy|uptov dpaxpas. , 
[ka]i 1) mpagis €orm Edmbd\a mapa Kdeordrpas [mpdooovtt 
[kala 7d Sidypappa. % 6& cvyypagr Bde Kupila ob ay emipepn- 
[rT]. pdprupes Hodvavos Kupnvaios idiorns, Of 18 letters 
15 [dlexavixds, of dt0 tav Zwtrov, AioKAns ‘Immodvaov [| 18 letters 
(Arjo\Aoviov ‘Eonepizns, Nixdévop Evayépov Balpxaios 12 letters 

oonaack 3 1022 ol ORCA oe 0) 00 Sen te nioeo aces [....]. mews Ap.[ 18 letters 

[Baoiiebovros TIrodepatoly rob Irod{epaiov Kat ‘Apow6- 

ins Ocdv ‘AdeAgpar (?) Erous TeTdprou <[p lepéws 

15. dco Of StoxAns corr. 

‘|. . If she fail to guarantee the lease in accordance with the aforesaid provisions, 
Cleopatra shall forfeit to Eupolis a fine of 100 drachmae of silver, unless some hindrance 

923) GONDTRAGLS. 259 

occur on the part of the State. If any hindrance occur on the part of the State, 
Cleopatra shall pay Eupolis the 30 artabae of wheat, or if she fail to pay she shall 
forfeit as the value of each artaba of the wheat . drachmae ; and Eupolis shall have a right 
of execution against Cleopatra, exercising it in accordance with the edict. This contract 
is valid wheresoever it be produced. The witnesses are Polyaenus, Cyrenean, private, 
and Th...., decurion, both members of Zoilus’ troop, Diocles son of Hippolysus... , 
- -.. Son of Apollonius from Hesperis, Nicanor son of Evagoras from Barcay et 

2. Perhaps 8¢xo[éar] {ai |] cxurddm; cf. 98. 19 and note. 

8. Cf. 90. 19, note. 

11. Probably dpaypas 8, i.e. double the ordinary price (cf. notes on 84 (a). 9 and 88. 
13); or perhaps dpaypds €; cf. SO. 15. 

13. ot dv emépn|rar: cf. 90. 20, &c. 

16. “Eonepitns: i.e. from ‘Eozepis (= Bepevixn) in the Cyrenaica. 

Mummy 97. II-3 X 9*3 cm. B.C. 263 (262). 

Both this and the following papyrus are contracts of surety for the 
appearance of a person in court, and are of much interest as being by far the 
oldest examples of such agreements yet recovered; so far as we are aware, 
the only other specimen anterior to the Roman period is P. Brit. Mus. 220. ii, of 
the reign of Euergetes II, which is misunderstood by the editor. In their 
general purport and even in phraseology 92 and 93 show striking points 
of agreement with the later specimens, which have been discussed at length 
by L. Wenger in his Rechtshistorische Papyrusstudien. His view that the cases 
concerned are civil rather than criminal is supported by 92, where the suit 
is an action for debt. The sum involved was altogether 400 drachmae ; and the 
two sureties bound themselves either to produce the defendant Timocles for trial 
before the strategus, or to pay the plaintiff Apollonius the amount of his claim. 
The agreement is made directly with the plaintiff, contrasting in this respect with 
the later examples in which an executive official is addressed. 

Baotretvovros [ItodXcpatov 706 TronXe- 
Haiov Kal tod viod IItodepatov érovs 
devrépov Kai elkooTod éf tepéws Iéorros Tod 
Andefdvdpou “Ade Elévdpov kal Oedv Adehpav 

5 Kar[n|popov Apowéns PiradeArA]pov M[v\noworpa- 
Ts TS Teodpxov pnvis Bavdik[o|6 Alyumri- 
ov pnivo|s Mey{ip| rercaperkadexdrne le-]] 

» 2 


é Movyxtvapom rot ‘Ogvpuyyxirov. eyyvor 

Tipoxr€ouvs To} Lipov Opaixds THs €mvyovas 
10 Mvdcov Xiplov| OpaiE rijs emyovas ‘Hyé- 

[uov .. lou Kpli|s ths emvyovns ép at ma- 

ov év [‘Hpax|déovs médeu émi 

[pad|dofovTat avr 
Kpuo | immov ] 
~ Lon ¢ 4 ~ 
tod [olr[platnylolv Ews yvdoews mepi THs 
dikns fs feyleneyinoey adrov ‘AroAAdi0s 
AN ( : ‘\ X\ Q 3 co 
15 kaT& ouvypaldi\y mpos Td dpxatov dSpa- 
XpHas Tplakocias Kai ToKov dpaxpas 
éxaTov. é€av O€ py mapada@vTat Kata 
TA yeypappéva aroTecdtwoay Tas TE 
Tpila|koo\ljas Spaxpas Kai Ta emidéxata k[ajt 

20 Ta] yuvdpeva, kal 1) mpagis o|rw [Azo]|Ador| for 
) dddot Tov [Kp\oinmov {7} Told mpdKro- 

[plos vmnperav Kata 76 [didypap\ua. 
14. o Of eveyunoey inserted later. 

‘In the 22nd year of the reign of Ptolemy son of Ptolemy and his son Ptolemy, the priest of 
Alexander and the gods Adelphi being Pelops son of Alexander, the canephorus of Arsinoé 
Philadelphus being Mnesistrate daughter of Tisarchus, on the 14th of the month Xandicus 
which is Mecheir of the Egyptians, at Mouchinaro6 in the Oxyrhynchite nome. Mnason son 
of Simus Thracian of the Epigone and Hegemon son of . .. imus, Cretan of the Epigone, are 
sureties for Timocles son of Simus, Thracian of the Epigone, on the condition that they 
shall deliver him up at Heracleopolis before Crisippus the strategus until the decision of the 
suit in which Apollonius placed him on bail according to the contract for a principal of 
300 drachmae and interest of 100 drachmae; and if they do not deliver him up as above 
written, they shall forfeit the 300 drachmae and the extra tenths and other charges, and 
Apollonius or any one besides of the attendants of Crisippus or of the collector shall have 
the right of execution in accordance with the decree.’ 

3-6. Cf. P. Petrie III. 52 (a), where the names of the priest and canephorus can now 
be correctly restored. 

7. Unfortunately at this critical point the papyrus is much rubbed and stained, and 
the correctness of the reading pn{vd|s Mex{ip| is open to grave doubts, for the vestiges of the 
supposed p of nex, which is the clearest of the letters, suggest rather » or x. The traces of 
the other letters are very slight, and palaeographically Me{co|py z{ij| would be possible, 
though 7 is less suitable than ex; but rij is not necessary (though cf. 93. 6), and, since the 
equation of Gorpiaeus to Mesore only five years later is certain from Rev. Laws lvii. 4-5, 
to read Meoopy here would produce a most serious inconsistency ; cf. App. i. pp. 339-40. 
For the spelling Meyip at this period cf. 34. 2, 51. 6, &c. 

8. The name of this village is spelled Movywapyo in 58. The Movywop of P. Oxy. 
491. 3 may be identical. 

938. CONTRACTS 261 

10, Mnason was most probably the brother of Timocles. 

12. It is noteworthy that although the agreement was drawn up in a village of the 
Oxyrhynchite nome, the case was to be tried at Heracleopolis, as also in 30. 14 and 99. gic 
The two latter papyri are not known to be Oxyrhynchite, but 93 was probably written in 
that nome like the other documents from Mummy A 9. The fact that in all three instances 
Heracleopolis is specified as the scene of the trial may be a mere chance, but it suggests 
the possibility that for judicial purposes the two nomes were combined under a single 
administration. There is evidence that in the time of Psammetichus Heracleopolis was the 
centre of government for Upper and Middle Egypt (Griffith, Demotic Papyré of the John 
kylands Library, pp. 75 sqq.); and the city may well have still retained some of its pre- 
eminence in the early Ptolemaic period. 

13. Kpvo[immov: cf. 1. 21, where it seems more natural that the name of the strategus 
should be given than that of a xpdkrop, and something more than [Kp |oinmou [ro|d is necessary 
to fill the space. Moreover, there are very few possible names ending in -icurmos, and that 
the first letters of one of them should occur in the name added above 1. 13 seems to be 
more than a mere coincidence, In 98 also the judge was to be the strategus, and it is to 
that official that the earlier Roman examples of similar undertakings are addressed. 

14. For the active eveyinoey cf. the use of Sveyyvay in 41. 4, &c. The superfluous ey is 
apparently due to a confusion on the part of the scribe, who also originally omitted the o. 
efeveyunoev can hardly be read, and besides gives a wrong sense. 

15. The meaning probably is that the debt was xara cvyypapiy (cf. 80. 5, 1 5). Clearness 
has been rather sacrificed to compression. 

1g. émdexara: cf. 32.9, note. For ra ywopeva cf. 111. 33-4, where they amount to 
30 drachmae 1% obols on a principal sum of 50 dr. 

21. Cf. note on |. 13. Aw, of course, does not imply that Apollonius was himself 
a unnperns, but is an example of a common idiom, 


Mummy A g. Q-5X 11cm. About B.c. 250. 

Conclusion of a contract of surety similar in character to 92, but following 
a different formula. By its terms Diodorus, the surety, undertook to produce 
his friend on a given date before the strategus, but the nature of the case at 
issue is not stated as in 92. Some kind of inquiry was evidently to be held ; 
but that any civil action had been instituted is doubtful, and the agreement is 
perhaps more likely to have been made with an official than with the plaintiff in 
a suit. The person for whom security is given may have been in a similar 
situation to that of the doxiacrjs in 41, or of the prisoner released on bail in 
P. Oxy. 259. The papyrus most probably belongs to the reign of Philadelphus, 
and is likely to have been written in the Oxyrhynchite nome; cf. 92. 12, note. 

goxais Aiodwpa: Xtpdtwvos Iépani ris 


> ~ ? 4 ~ » 4? fox , 
emlyovns eyyv@r povns ep wl mape- 

gera adtov ev ‘“Hpaxhéous modlee ev 
rot éuhavel “eEw lepot Kali méons 

5 okémns él TOO aTpat|nyod pnvos 
PappodvOr rie vy Tob a[vtob Erous 
24 X , tau 
éav O€ AmoKaTaoTH[oNl.... +--+ 
Atovictoy akupols EoTM......-- 
Aw, [aly d& py [amoKaractHont Els €k- 
10 Teo 4 Sidylvoots mept avTov Eo- 

To mpos BaolirKa. 

‘. .. to Diodorus son of Straton, Persian of the Epigone, who is surety for appearance 
on condition that he shall produce him at Heracleopolis openly, outside of a temple or any 
other shelter, before the strategus on the 13th of the month Pharmouthi of the same year. 
If he cause Dionysius to appear (?), proceedings against him shall be invalid; but if he 
fail to cause him to appear for payment, decision about his case shall be made with 
reference to the royal decrees.’ 

1. The first letters of the line suggest only a proper name. How the dative Arodapor 
was governed is doubtful; perhaps éveyénoev or mapédoxev preceded. 

2. eyyvot porns: Cf. 41. 5 dueyyunoas . . . mapapovis. 

3-5. Cf. P. Tebt. 210, which may now be read é&@ iepod Bapod tepevovs oKxénns maans 
(with probably é[mi ray 7é]rov preceding), and P. Oxy. 785 mapéfouar ev rai eupavet exros 
icpod Bwpot x.r.A. These instances offer a good example of the persistence of such formulae. 
The elaborate explanation of dkivduvov ravrés kwdivov in B. G, U. 1053. ii. 4 sqq- is couched 
in somewhat similar language. 

7-9. The restoration of these lines depends upon the identity of Dionysius, who may 
have been either the person admitted to bail or the person permitting bail to be given. 
In the former case AwSepos or eis &krecow (cf. 1. g), in the latter a’rév mpds may be read. 
* fpoSos or some equivalent word is required with dkvpo{s rr, but this cannot be put into 
1. 7, since zpis Awdepor not Avordcvov would be expected. The syllable at the beginning of 
l. 9 may be the termination of a name in the dative, but it does not seem to be the same 
as that inl. 1. For dmoxaraorylone cf. P. Oxy. 259. 7. 

10-1. Cf. the common phrase 6 Baoieds rept adrod (&c.) dkayrdoera, e.g. P. Amh, 
29.18. mpds Baodtxd, which is found also in 94.3 and 15, 95.14, and 124-6 in connexion 
with mpagis or mpdooey, is apparently only a rather more general equivalent of xara 1é 
did ypappa, 


Mummy 18. 19 X 8 cm. B.C. 258-7 (257-6). 

The two following texts are also contracts of surety, but of a kind of which 
examples belonging to this period are extant. The persons for whom surety 
is here given were contractors for the collection of taxes, as in P. Petrie III. 57 

94. CONTRACTS 263 

(a), (4), 58 (c), (2). The name of the tax in the present instance is unfortunately 
lost. The contractor was Semphtheus, a brewer, but since the amount involved 
is only 10 drachmae for a whole year, the tax is not likely to have been the 
urnpa at a considerable village such as Tholthis, unless Semphtheus was one 
of a large company, of which there is no indication. In P. Petrie III. 58 (ad) the 
sum is also small, 20 drachmae. The sureties, two in number, were military 
settlers. Prefixed to the agreement is what appears to be an abstract of the 
contents, as in some other early Ptolemaic papyri (cf. 98, P. Petrie III. 58 (d), 
&c.), and in many of the later period. 

eemetrorsnsemoxce ] (Cpaxper ?) « aviavT\Aléxt@v él maot 

[Tols bmdp\xovow adbtai, Kall % mpagis 
[mpos Baotdi\kd. 

[BactreKovt|os IItodepatov [rob I ro- 
5 [Aexaiov Sa|rnpos (Erovs) kn éd’ lepjeos 
Geer se theese T]od Avkivov AreEdrdl pov 
[kal Oeav Aldedpay Kavngi[dlpov "Apolivé- 
[ns Diradێ|Agov Nipdns tas Meyovos 
ep atersiaars.cs ] Kf €v OGdABa. eyyvos fis 
10 [éxreoiv] Seudbews “Npov ¢vrozro.od 
[kopuns Oa)\Oews kaba e€AlaBev ma- 
ipecrewerst one Js otkovopou €od[.]..[.]Bo.[... 
[oxSeomoecteanes ] €¢s 70 Kn (Eros) ITo[AjuxrAns Opac€ 
[Tov Zwiroly [(Spaxpav)] déea dvar{rir€|kTor, Kal 
15 |) mpagis mpols Baowixa émi mao[t] Tos imdpyov- 
let(and. hand)... 4. Kupn|vaios idteérns tov Zlw|idov cuve- 
[yyvopat, IToAyxdjs Opaig ididrns tv Zoidov yerpo- 
[ypap® vmep adjrov bru éyyvdrai cis exreow Yeubé- 
[a “pov éx O}érr0s Spaxpav déxa xara 7d obp- 
20 [Bodrov Tobro. ] 

4-20. ‘In the 28th year of the reign of Ptolemy the son of Ptolemy Soter, the priest 
of Alexander and the gods Adelphi being ... son of Lucinus, the canephorus of Arsinoé 
Philadelphus being Nymphe daughter of Magon, . . . 27th, at Tholthis. Polycles, Thracian 
of the troop of Zoilus, is surety on behalf of Semphtheus son of Horus, brewer of the village 
of Tholthis, in accordance with his contract made with ..., oeconomus, for the ... in 


the 28th year, for payment of 10 drachmae, about which there is no dispute ; and execution 
shall be made with reference to the royal decrees, at the risk of all his property. (Signed) 
I..., Cyrenean, private of the troop of Zoilus, am surety together with him. I, Polycles, 
Thracian, private of the troop of Zoilus, attest on his behalf that he is surety for Sem- 
phtheus son of Horus, of Tholthis, for payment of 1o drachmae, in accordance with this 


I. aviavr|A\exrov: cf. 1. 14 and 95. 13. 

3. [mpos Baowi|xd: cf. 1. 15 and note on 938. 10-1. 

4-5. UlroXepaiov [rod UroAepaiov Sw'rijpos: this formula replaced Urodepaiov rod Hrodepatov 
kai Tov viov Hrodenaiov (cf. e.g. 85) in the 27th year (Rev. Laws i. 1 and introd. pp. xix sqq.) ; 
the formula in the early part of the reign was HroAeuaiov tov Urodepaiov simply (cf. 97 and 
99), and of this the latest extant example is of 100. 8, written in the 19th year, in which the 
change to the second formula took place; cf. 100, introd. 

12. The word following oixovéuov might be a place-name, but the name of the tax 
would be expected. Neither (urnpas nor ’Ogvpvyxirou can be read. 

19. OlaArws: cf. 62. 9 Owdrret, Elsewhere (e.g. 55. 2) this village is spelled Oddbs. 

20. Below this line are some marks in fainter ink which could be read | /a/k; 
but they are more likely to be either part of a line in demotic or blottings from another 


Mummy A 6. Breadth 11-1 cm. BiG. 250 (255). 

An agreement of surety for a tax-farmer similar to 94 (cf. introd.), but with 
some peculiar features. The person for whom security was given was not 
himself the principal contractor, but apparently occupied a secondary position by 
an arrangement with the principal. The tax was the ‘24th upon four-footed 
animals at Oxyrhynchus, which is not known from other sources. Perhaps this 
was an export duty, which in the case of wine at any rate, as is shown by 80, 
was at the rate of #4, of the value. But the name is hardly a natural one 
for a customs duty, although such duties, in the Roman period at least, are now 
shown by P. Brit. Mus. 929 and 1107 to have been computed upon the number 
of laden animals, not the quantity which each carried. An alternative is to 
make this 24th a general impost on property in four-footed animals, the ¢épos 
mpoBarwr, which is known from an unpublished Tebtunis papyrus to have existed 
in the third century B.C., being perhaps a branch of it. A tax of #3; without 
further qualification occurs in 112 and 182 ; cf. 112. 38, note. 

The papyrus is broken into two pieces, and two or three lines are missing 
in the middle, besides minor defects. 

Baowetolvtos [rode jaiov tio} IIrodepatov Swrhpos 

evjolus KO ed lepéws ‘Avridxov [Tob .|. €... ‘Adekav- 

95. CONTRACTS 265 

O[polu Kai] bea “AdeAgpav Kavndébpov ‘Apowwons 

Hiri alderdioly Anpovixns ths Pirtwvos pnvos 
8 Iadr{] Kd ev ‘Okuptyxov mide tHe brepbe 

Mépilplews. eyyuvos eis ExTelow.........- 

tetpanbdwv 'Oguptyxav tridews donlep 
[[eEeAaBev]] cvverdgaro mpds oKxérny 

10 Tod THY KO [ey|AaBdvTos map "ArroA\wviov 

«. Tas 
Tod dwotkn{Told els 76 KO (Eros) Ilac.. . wvios 

Neo... [-- -\e-- 1 €.. |. .] €ml amaot rots tardp- 
[xovlow avavTiréxtov O[plax[uov....... 

[kali  mpaéis mpos BaoiWika. 

‘In the 29th year of the reign of Ptolemy the son of Ptolemy Soter, the priest of 
Alexander and the gods Adelphi being Antiochus son of ..., the canephorus of Arsinoé 
Philadelphus being Demonice daughter of Philon, on the 24th of the month Pauni, at 
Oxyrhynchus above Memphis. Pas... son of ...onis... is surety on behalf of ... of 
the Oxyrhynchite nome, for the 24th upon four-footed animals at the city of Oxyrhynchus, 
in accordance with ...’s agreement for the security of the person who contracted for the 
24th in the 29th year with Apollonius the dioecetes, at the risk of all his property, 
for the payment of ... drachmae about which there is no dispute, and the execution 
shall be made with reference to the royal decrees.’ 

2. The name of the priest in dem. P. Leyden 379 is read by Revillout as ‘ Antimachus 
son of Cebes,’ which our papyrus shows to be inaccurate. The first name is ’Avtioyos, and 
we cannot reconcile the vestiges of the second with Ke8jros. The last letter is, however, 
probably s rather than v, and the termination may be -z/o|s or -do's. 

5. Umepbe Mepipleas: the Heracleepelite nome is similarly described as being iznép 
Mepduv in papyri of the Roman period, e.g. C. P. R. 6. 4; cf. p. 8. 

7. TETAPTOVELKOOTHS > TETPAKAaLELKOOTHS ean be the normal form at this period; cf. e. g. 
Ee beinie 1. 25 (2) 2: 

9. The fact that eééAaBev was first written (cf. 94. 11) shows that the subject of 
ovveragaro is the person whose name is lost between Il. 6 and 7, and for whom security was 
given. oxérny at the end of the line is extremely doubtful ; ex may be ay, and three letters 
instead of two may precede. 

10. "AmodA@viov: cf. 44. 3, note. 

11-2. Tao... may be either the name of the surety, whose description is then 
continued in the next line, or the name of the éyAaBdvros, in which case that of the 
surety would come in ]. 12, Ae... The addition above |. 11 looks more like an 
intentional insertion than ink which has blotted off from another papyrus. If it were 
ignored [ao/s|s Gowveos would be a possible reading. 

14. Cf. note on 93. 10-1, 



Mummy A 17. Fr. (@) 10X 11-7 cm. B.C. 259 (258). 

An agreement in duplicate between two military settlers at Phebichis, 
one of whom at least was a Jew, for the settlement of a dispute between them, 
the nature of which is not specified. Each of the two parties withdraws his 
claims against the other; and the bulk of the contract is the earliest Greek 
example of the stereotyped formula found in P. Tor. 4, an agreement of 
a similar character (duodoyet svvheAvoOa), and in cessions of land and repayments 
of loans, e.g. P. Grenf. II. 25, 26, 28, 30. The title of the agreement is 
cvyypapy anxoorastov, which throws some light on the meaning of the latter term ; 
cf.1. 3,note. At the end are the signatures of the witnesses, whose names are also 
given on the verso and who seem to have been seven in number ; cf. note on 1. 13. 
The papyrus is in three fragments which do not join, and both copies of the 
contract are very imperfectly preserved; but by combining them the body of the 
document emerges nearly complete. The writing is across the fibres. 

[Baothevovros Irodepatov tod I rodepalov jai rob viod [rodepailov] €Tous 
€xtou Kal elkooTov 

[ép’ fepéws 22 letters Are~d|ydpov kai Oedv Adeddialy Kavnpopov ‘Apawwéns 

[S€rgou 22 letters pnvis Aorpov én Pef[i]xe 70d Koiz{ov.] ovyypapy 

(Avdpovixov rod 15 letters ris émvyovas Kal ‘AdeEdvdpov tod ‘Avdpovixou 
*Tovdaiov pera 

5 [ 20 letters tov Zwirov dexavi|kod. opodroyovoty StadedAvc Oat mpos ad- 

AnAous Tav- 

[ra Tad eykAnpata Tepi dv evexddecav addmAoi|s TOV émdv@ xpovev, [7 
eééla[rw] d& Avdpovixar 

[érerbeiy én’ “Aré~avdpov pnd ‘AreEdvdpwx €\n’ 'Avdpivixov pnd aAdor 
Umltp abrav émipéplovtds [te ey|kAnpa mapev- 

[péoer pendepide mepi pnOevds t&v mpoyeyo|vérwy avrots mpos addAAHAous 
e[y|kAnpdtov ews 

[érous &xrou Kal ekoarod Kal pnvds Avorpou,| €a{v] de EmerOne O7rd[T]epos 

[. -]. LJepl.] . emt roy €Eve- 






96. CONTRACTS 267 

[pov % 7 ehodos rae emimopevopévor kupos. .\r . Ea7[@, €lkTeodtw [A 6 
émi|ropevdper[o|s wt €av 

[éréAOne 33 letters 7 ovjy[yplapy Ade Ku[pia Ect malyTaxod ov av emi- 

[pépnrar. 24 letters pdlptuples] NuxdBiois Xadxideds, Arov|vaddwpos 
Kpopvi- ; 

[rns ? 32 letters ]. ovror tv Zlwtdov, Yrpdtwv .. . .)kdeous ‘“Epu- 

[Opirns ? 28 letters w|rns rhs émtyov[fjs NetToupyos,......- |xp[. -] . [-Jus 

[ 35 letters | Avwédvdpov Boiwr[tos rhs emvyovns Ale touplyos. 

[iO «5; avyypagogtrAag Aovvcddwpos.| 

[Bacirevovros IIroepatov rob Irodeuatov Kai rod viod [Irodcpaioly erov{s 
€lxrou Kal €lkoo- 

[rod éf fcpéws 22 letters Adegdvdpov Kai Oedv ‘AldeApav Kavngéopov Apot- 

[véns Piradedgov 22 letters uyvis Avotpov elu PeBixe Tod K[wlfrov. 

[ovyypadi) amocraciov ‘Avdpovixov Tob 15 letters rH\s emyovns Kal ‘Ande§é- 

700 ‘Avdpor{(cov ’Ijovdaiov pe[td 20 letters 7év] Zeidov dexavixod. opodo- 

yotow Stadeddcbar mpos GrlAjAovs mwavta Ta eykAjpara trelp[i] ov eve- 
KdX\eoav addAHAOLS 

tov éndvw xpbvev, ph é[éat@ de ‘Avdpor|ixar ered[Oetvy ew Adél£ar|dpoly 
pnd “Adefav- 

Spot én’ [Alydpdvixov pnd addrdo bwép avtov| emip€polyTas Te eyxAn]ua 
mapev[péoer pndep|i[ae] mepi pnOevos 

Tav n[poyeylovérwy avz[ois mpods dAArjAous] éyk[Anudtov ws Erous €|kTov 
Kal eikooTov 

kali pnvos Alvorpov. dv O[e eméAOne Smérepos....] emt Tov ErEpov Ff 
T €podos Tau 

é[memropevop|évar akupos [.... €oTw, éxrercdrw 8 6 éjmimopevopevos at edv 

[oye 33 letters 4 cvyypagy ibe] Kupia orm mavtaxod ov ay em- 

[pépnrar. 24 letters pdptupes NuijkdBros Xadxideds, Arovvaddwpos 

[Kpowpvirns 34 letters jovroe trav Zotdov, Srpdtev 

[.... KAdeous ’EpuOpizns 28 letters Jwrns THs émvyovas NecToupyés, 

[ 48 letters ] dimEdvdpov Bowdrios ris emtyovijs 

[Aecroupyds. 30 letters cuyypalpopvAak Atovucddwpos. 


On the verso 

‘Avdpovixou| ee retake TE te eter | A\ovuciov 
35 Adrcédvdpou| Pirwvos [NixoBiov] 
Atovvcodépou] ST patovos [Tu]uoorpdrov 
7. pnd... avrwyv above the line, 10, wt eav COIT. 24. pnd... avtwy above the 
line. 27. wt above eay erased, 

‘In the 26th year of the reign of Ptolemy the son of Ptolemy and his son Ptolemy, 
... being priest of Alexander and the gods Adelphi, the canephorus of Arsinoé Philadelphus 
being ..., in the month Dystrus, at Phebichis in the Koite district. Contract of renunciation 
between Andronicus... of the Epigone, and Alexander son of Andronicus, Jew, with... 
of Zoilus’ troop, decurion. ‘They agree that they have settled all the claims which they 
made against each other in former times ; and Andronicus has no right to proceed against 
Alexander nor Alexander against Andronicus, nor may any other party on their behalf 
bring any claim on any pretext with respect to any of the claims which they made against 
each other up to the 26th year and the month Dystrus. If either of the two parties proceed 
against the other, both the act of aggression shall be invalid for the person making it, and 
the aggressor shall forfeit to the injured party a fine of ...drachmae. This contract is 
valid wheresoever it be produced... The witnesses are Nicobius, Chalcidian, Dionysodorus, 
Cromnian,..., all three ... of Zoilus’ troop, Straton son of .... cles, Erythrian (?),... 
of the Epigone, on special duty, . . . son of Dioxander, Boeotian of the Epigone, on special 
duty. The keeper of the contract is Dionysodorus.’ 

3. svyypady drooraciov: this expression has hitherto always been found in connexion 
with the translations of demotic deeds concerning the renunciation of rights of ownership, 
the (cvyypap)) dmooraciov being contrasted with the mpaous, the contract concerning the 
receipt of the purchase-price; cf. Wilcken, Archiv, Il. p. 143 and pp. 388-9. The close 
similarity between the formula of 96 and that of cessions of land (e. g. P. Grenf. II. 25) 
fully supports Wilcken’s explanation of the distinction. 

3. Avorpov: this month corresponded approximately to Mecheir in the year after that 
in which 96 was written; cf. App. i. 

4. Probably "Iov8atou ris emyorq|s, even if this Andronicus is not identical with the 
father of Alexander. 

g. The word following éxd[rlepos is not airéy, and in |. 26 there is certainly not room 
for 8 letters between dmérepos and éni, the restoration being in fact there sufficient without 
supposing the loss of any word after érérepos. It is quite possible that in 1. 9 éxérepos was 
written twice over by mistake. P. Tor. 4 has érepéds tus bmép adrod at this point. 

10. dxupos €or would be expected on the analogy of e.g. P. Grenf. II. 25.20; but the 
traces at the beginning of the line are inconsistent with os, and the initial lacuna should 
contain about 40 letters. Either, therefore,a word was inserted between dxupos and €ore, OF 
a longer verb than éerw was employed. ‘The supposed € of gor @ is not very satisfactory. 

11-2, emi pépynra would be expected to end the body of the contract; cf. 90. 20, 91. 13. 
Perhaps a blank space was left after it both here and in 1. 29; or possibly kat mavri tae 
émupepovrs was added, as in papyri of a later period, e.g. P. Oxy. 269. 13. The reading 
palpruples] is, however, very doubtful, and it is not quite certain that NuxéSio{s is nominative. 
In two instances at least (ll. 13 and 15) the fathers’ names are given; but on the other 
hand Kpopu{ suggests an adjective meaning ‘from Kromna’ (in Paphlagonia) rather than 

97. RECEIPTS 269 

a personal name, and cf. 91. 14-6, where the father’s name is omitted in the case of the 
first witness, but not in that of the 3rd, 4th, and sth. 

13. |.ovro is the termination of some military title not found elsewhere in these 
papyri. oi rpeis probably preceded, if the name of a third witness occurred in the lacuna, 
as its length suggests. That the witnesses to this contract were seven—not, as usual, 
six—in number, is further indicated by the list of them on the verso, where the ovyypa- 
gogvda€ Dionysodorus does not occur among the six mentioned. Probably his name 
followed next after that of the two principals of the contract, as is the case with the 
ovyypapopvAa€ in the lists of names on the verso of P. Tebt. 104 and 105. Seven witnesses 
are apparently found in $0 also; cf, 90. 22, note. 

"Epv[Opimms, if correct, probably means a settler from ’Epv6pa akpa in the Cyrenaica. 

14. erovpyés, which at this period can mean simply a ‘workman’ (e.g. P. Petrie 
III. 46 (3). 5), is a novel title of a military settler, Probably Xeroupyds has no definitely 
military significance, but this settler had some special duties assigned to him. The 
tax called derrovpy:xéy which was paid by Ptolemaic cleruchs (P. Petrie III. 110, P. Tebt. 
102. 3) may have been in lieu of performing these duties; cf. Wilcken, Os/. I. p. 382. For 
Aetroupyiae imposed on Greek settlers cf. 78. 

16. There was very likely a blank space before ovyypapopvAa€ both here and in I. 33. 


97. ReceEIPT, 

Mumny 5. 8x 78cm. B.C. 279-8 (278-7) or 282—1 (281-0). Prate X. 

Commencement of an acknowledgement of receipt, dated either in the 4th 
or the 7th year (cf. note on]. 2) of Philadelphus. In either case this is the earliest 
date in that reign yet found in a Greek papyrus, and ranks next in antiquity to 
that of 84 (a), which came from the same mummy. There is much similarity 
in the handwriting of the two documents. On the verso is an impression of 
Aa.ciov from another papyrus. 

Baoirevovros II {rodepa}fov 

tod IIro[Aepatlov (érovs) ¢ ep’ fe- 
péos Aliulvat oly rod ’Anfo)r- 

A® pnvidls ‘AredAalov Ke. 

5 [OluoAoyel dméyey K.. {. 

Ie oo oles t[av ‘A- 


‘AcEd|ydpov (diaTys mapa 

|] 7[0]8 Mvacéov [... 

2. The figure is broken and may be read either as 6 or ¢ according as some traces 
of ink to the left of the diagonal stroke are regarded as accidental or not. 

3. Alip|vaciov: cf. 80. 16, P. Petrie III. 14. 9, &c. But the initial letter may equally 
well be A, e. g. *A[On]vai{olv. 

4. Apellaeus probably corresponded approximately to Mesore or Thoth at this period 

ch App: 1p. 330. 
6. A blank space is left for K . . .’s nationality. 

98. ReceErpT OF A CAPTAIN. 

Mummy 117. 22:3X 9-8 cm. B.C. 251-(250). 
Acknowledgement by a captain of a transport that he had received 
4800 artabae of barley to be delivered at Alexandria ; cf. 39, 100, 156 (which 

was found with 98), and P. Petrie II. 48. The contract is preceded by a short 
abstract of its contents, as in 94. 

Sieciaesen’ a (Erovs)| Ad Mecopyy [kd. 6p0d0- 

yet [Atovbc.os| viat|\kAnpos é€u{B\eB[Ano- 

[Oa dia Nex O0eulBéovs tod wap tay Palos 
[kav ypap|ulalréwy els Kép(kovpov) Revoddkou [kat 

5 Alreédvdpov] Kpi6[@\v (dprdBas) ‘Ao. 

[Bact\Aevovros TIrorepaiov rob Irodepailov 
[Sw|rfjpos (Erous) AS ep lepéws Neomwrod€pov 
tod Ppi€iov ‘AdeEdvdpov Kal Oeav 

[Ader] bar Kavnpopov ‘Apowwéns Piradéd- 

10 [dolv ‘Apowédns tis Nixoddov pvos 
Meoopy kd. [d\uoroyet Acovda{ios 
vatKAnpos euBeBAnobale eis] Kép(Koupor) 
Fevoddxov kal ‘AdegEdvSpov ep [ob] xiu(Bepvijrns) 
"Exredpis Idowros Meudirns dua 

15 NexdeuBéovs rod mapa tav Baciikev 
ypappatéwv ware eis ‘ANe€|dvdpeav 

eis TO Baoiixdy ody Selyparte [KpiOav 

998 VRECEIPTS 271 

> 7 ? b 7 

apraBas TeTpakicyxidlas oKT|aKoolas 

aitov KalOapoy &|\d[o|Aov KekooKir[evpévoy) étpot [Kai oKuTa- 
20 Ant ols aluTos nlvéyKato e€ ‘Adeg[avdpelas 

hetpyoce Srkatat,| Kal ovOlev eyKana. 
I4. KEKOOKLY EUJLEVOU added above the line. 

‘The 34th year, Mesore 24. Dionysius, captain, acknowledges that he has embarked 
through Nechthembes the agent of the basilicogrammateis on the boat of Xenodocus and 
Alexander 4800 artabae of barley. 

‘In the 34th year of the reign of Ptolemy the son of Ptolemy Soter, the priest of 
Alexander and the gods Adelphi being Neoptolemus son of Phrixius, the canephorus of 
Arsinoé Philadelphus being Arsinoé daughter of Nicolaus, the 24th of the month Mesore. 
Dionysius, captain, acknowledges that he has embarked upon the boat of Xenodocus and 
Alexander, the pilot on which is Ecteuris son of Pasis, of Memphis, through Nechthembes 
the agent of the basilicogrammateis, for transport to the royal granary at Alexandria, with 
a sample, 4800 artabae of barley, being pure, unadulterated and sifted grain, by the 
measure and smoothing-rod which he himself brought from Alexandria, with just measure- 
ment, and I make no complaint.’ 

1. Even if (érovs) was written out, the space at the beginning of the line would not be 
filled. Perhaps dvtiypapov preceded. 

4. For xép(kovpov) cf. 82. 6. The abbreviation consists of a tall stroke slightly 
thickened at the top and joined to an ¢«, and might be read t( ); but this suggests 
nothing, and the first stroke is really too large for an 4 Moreover, the abbreviation 
xep(__), more plainly written, occurs in some unpublished similar documents from Tebtunis. 
The same compendium is apparently repeated in |. 12 below, with a larger curve for the p. 

13. ef’ [od| «[u(Bepynrns): the reading of the last word is very doubtful, but cf. 39. 5-6, 
P. Petrie III. 107 (c). 4, &c. Xenodocus and Alexander were the owners of the boat, and 
Dionysius the acting principal. A similar distinction between vav«Anpos and owner occurs in 
the Tebtunis papyri referred to in the note on 1. 4, and P. Magd. 37. 1-2. 

16. P. Petrie I]. 48. 4-5 may now be restored on this analogy date {els "AXeEdvSpecav 
eis Td Baor|Acxov, euBeBjcOa having preceded at the end of the previous line. 

17. ovv detyparc: cf. 89. 15-0. 

19-20. Cf. 156 and P. Cairo 10250. 10 sqq. (Archiv, I. p. 80) pérpar de adrids| éxdpioa 
e€ ’AdeEavdpeias. Probably something similar is to be restored in P. Petrie II. 48. 9. For 
the oxvradn cf. P. Cairo 10250. 13 and P. Amh. 43. 10. 

21. ov6lév eyeade: cf. 87. 13-4 and P. Petrie II. 48. 10, The same phrase also occurs 
at the end of some of the Tebtunis receipts referred to. above. 

99. Recrerer FoR ReEnT. 

Mummy A 17. 14-5 XQ cm. B.C. 270(269). Prate X. 

An acknowledgement of the payment of rent, partly in olyra partly in 
a money equivalent of wheat, by two yewpyol; cf.100. The land in question 
seems to have belonged to one of the BactArkol KAnpor (85. 13; cf. 52. 26, note), 


i.e. to be really BaotAcK) y ; cf. note on |. 8. The protocol contains the earliest 
extant mention of the association of the gods Adelphi with Alexander in the 
Alexandrian cult, and the latest instance of the absence of the canephorus of 
Arsinoé. A comparison of this passage with 110. 40 and 44 shows that the 
association of the gods Adelphi took place between the 13th and 15th years 
of Philadelphus; cf. App. iii. p. 368. The canephorus first appears in a papyrus 
of the 19th year; cf. App. iii. p. 369. 128 is perhaps part of a duplicate of 99. 

Baoirebovros rode pai- 

ov tod IItodepatloly (Erovs) te 
ep lepéws IIarp[d|kXou Tod 
Il ézpwvos “Adeédvd{ pou 

5 kal Oedy ‘Adedpav pnvos 
Aatciov K.  bplodrolyet 
Hapapérns Kupyrlalfjos olfefo 
vopuos Tedéarov €xelwv 
mapa Aovvoias wrép {. . 

10 dpov és 7a éxdidpia z[o|6 II plo- 
Toyévous KAHpov oAv(pav) adp7(aéBas) v 
kat mapa Kadd.obێvov 
ddAup(@v) (a4pTraéBas) py Kal Tippy 
Tupay (a4pTaBdv) o é€x B (dBodrod) THU 

15 (ap7dByt) (Spaxpuas) pva (rerpdéPBodror). 

13. This line inserted later. 

‘In the reign of Ptolemy the son of Ptolemy, the 15th year, Patroclus son of Patron 
being priest of Alexander and the gods Adelphi, the 2oth of the month Daisius. Paramenes, 
Cyrenean, oeconomus of Telestes, agrees that he has received from Dionysia on behalf of 
.. drus, for the rent of Protogenes’ holding, 400 artabae of olyra, and from Callisthenes 
120 artabae of olyra and the value of 70 artabae of wheat at 2 drachmae 1 obol for the artaba, 
151 drachmae 4 obols.’ 

6. Aaciov: this month probably corresponded in the 15th year of Philadelphus to 
parts of Phamenoth and Pharmouthi; cf. App. i. p. 3309. 

8. Tedéorov: cf. 85. 13-4 Pirokevou KAjpov Baowuxdy tov Tedéorov, and note.  Telestes 
was probably captain of a troop, but what position this oixoydaos TeAéorov occupied is not 
clear. If he was an ordinary oixovéyos, Tedéorou would on the analogy of e.g. 169 be 
expected to refer to the district under his control, and it is possible that TeAéorov here and 
tay Tedéorov in 85. 14 means the district which was or had been governed by a military 
official called Telestes ; cf. the use of the military term éynuaas the name of a toparchy in 

L003 -KECETETS 273 

101. 3. On the other hand, the mention of Paramenes’ nationality suggests that he was 
not an ordinary oikovéyos, but a military settler acting as agent for his captain, Telestes. 
If so, however, the rent of Protogenes’ «djpos would seem to be paid not to the State, 
but to the leader of a troop of military settlers, whereas it is more satisfactory to regard 
Protogenes’ «Ajpos as one of the xAjpou BaowAtxoi which are so often met with in the volume 
(cf. 52. 26, note). We prefer, therefore, to suppose that Paramenes was a government 

10. The supposed o of 8pov is very doubtful, and 8pv (or apv) can equally well be 
read, and might be combined with the following es as one name; but cf. 100. 11 els ra 

14. 2 drachmae 1 obol for an artaba of wheat is slightly higher than the ordinary 
rate (2 dr.) found at this period; cf. 84(a). 8-9, note. 

100. Account. ReEcereT ror Rent. 

Mumny 5. 14X7-Qcem. B.C. 267 (266). PLaTE X (recto). 

On one side of this papyrus is a short account in drachmae, on the other 
an acknowledgement by an agent of Xanthus that he had received from 
Euphranor some barley which was the rent of a xAfpos, and was being forwarded 
by river ; cf. introd. to 89, where the same persons are also concerned, and 98. 
It is not quite certain which side is recto and which verso; but the smoother 
side seems to be that occupied by the account, which will then be earlier than 
B.C. 267 (266). In any case, however, the interval between the two documents 
is small, since they were almost certainly written by the same person, whose 
hand is a characteristic example of the more cursive writing of this period (see 
Plate X). The receipt on the verso was not completed, and blank spaces were 
left for some of the details. The writing on both sides is across the fibres. 

The most interesting point in the papyrus is the date in Il. 8-9, where the 
absence of kai rod viod [IroAcuafov shows that Euergetes (if he is meant by rod vid 
in that formula) was still not generally known to have been associated in the 
sovereignty on Phaophi 11 of the 19th year (Dec. 6, B.C. 267 if it was a revenue 
year, probably B.C. 266 if it was regnal; cf. p. 367). On the other hand, ac- 
cording to a Louvre demotic papyrus (Revillout, Chrest. dém. pp. 231-40), the 
association had taken place before Athur 30 (Jan. 24) in the 19th year (B.C. 266 
or 265). Hence, assuming that our papyrus may be trusted—and in the absence 
of other evidence there is no ground for doubting its accuracy—the date of the 
association can now be more narrowly determined than previously. If the 19th 
year in 100 and the demotic papyrus is in both cases a revenue year, the limits 
are Dec. 6, 267, and Jan. 24, 266; if it is in both cases a regnal year, they are 



Dec. 6, 266, and Jan. 24, 265; if the 19th year in 100 is a revenue year and that 
in the demotic a regnal (which is the most likely hypothesis), the limits are 
Dec. 6, 267, and Jan. 24, 265; the converse hypothesis would produce an incon- 
sistency between the two papyri and need not be considered. Bouché-Leclercq 
(Hist. des Lagides, 1. p. 184) rather arbitrarily adopts the year B.C. 268 as 
the ¢erminus ante quem for the date of the association, a view which is no 
longer tenable. 


(Um \epavyAwKas (Kn; 
[els] TovTo Kopi¢es 
[walpa Tov Ta awidla €, 
‘Klat mapa Thy KaTad- 
[Aalyiy Y> 

[Ti]unv (dpraBav) > uf, 
[7] «, A(ourat) 7. 


Baotdevovros IrorXepatov rob [rodepail ov 
(€rovs) 10 pnvos ITa@qu wa. exer Taotvrns 

10 6 olTomérpns EdvOov map Evdpd vjopos 
dv ‘Avtiumdrpov eis Ta exfdpia Tod “Ade- 
Edvdpov kdijpou els 7d 10 (Eros) &€& ‘Avaried 
KpiOa(v) (aprdéBas ?) A mp( ) es Bapuy Ep 
Bepvirns vavKAnpos 

nS KU- 

1. bmlepavndwxas : 1d imepar(}Aoua) Occurs in the account on the verso of 112. 

3- An doidvov is shown by Smyly in P. Petrie III. pp. 345 sqq. to have been a volume 
equal to the cube of which the side was a royal double cubit. Following the letter ¢ at the 
end of the line is a circular mark resembling that used as an abbreviation of 7, and it would 
be possible to regard ex( ) as a participle governing ra dwitca. But a 5 is much wanted 
here for the arithmetic, and the mark in question is somewhat indistinct and may be 
accidental. With the reading adopted in the text a participle must be supplied. 

4. karaddayn seems here to have much the same sense as éma\d\ayn, a use Of the 
word found also in classical writers. 

6. (dpraBav) : sc. rupod probably, 2 drachmae being the normal price of an artaba of 
wheat at this period; cf. note on 84(a). 8-9. 

8-14. ‘In the roth year of the reign of Ptolemy son of Ptolemy, the 11th of the 
month Phaophi, Paoutes the corn-measurer of Xanthus has received from Euphranor 


through Antipater for the rent of the holding of Alexander for the rgth year, from 
Anatieu (?), 30 artabae of barley, which have been embarked (?) upon the boat 
whose pilot is and whose captain is + 

10. The space before o:roperpys was intended for a further specification of Paoutes, 
e.g. ev with a place-name. 

11-2. The ’Adefdvdpou xdjpos recurs in 89. 9. ’Avaried is apparently the name of 
a place, probably in the Keirns témos; cf. 39, introd, 

13. The meaning of the abbreviation is obscure; the p (or ¢) is written through the z, 
which may also be read as p. A participle would suit the sense. 

14. This line was probably the last, but the margin below is not broad enough to 

be quite decisive. 

101. RecerpT For RENT, 

Mummy 5. 13-7 X 9:9 cm. B.C. 261 (260). 

A receipt, similar to 100, for a large quantity of barley delivered by 
Euphranor to a superior official as rent of cleruchic land ; cf. introd. to 39. 

“Erovs xd pnvos ToBi.. exe 
AiBavos 6 mapa Sépvov oiro- 
Aoyos Tod ‘Ayjpatos mapa 
Evdpavopos brep Idd wvols 
5 «ls ods yewpyel KAjpous Bag td(tKovs) 
A[pler[dd|rns ev Sicivyne vrelp 
[zane beciaeay acs lov els rovs apaol. . 
Hétpat avnroTika. KplOav dpTdBas émraxocias 
dyOonkovTa TéeTTApas 

10 Huvov TéTaptoy dydoor. 
8. petpwr avyrwrixar above the line. 

‘The 24th year, in the month of Tubi. Libanus, agent of Semnus and sitologus of the 
Agema, has received from Euphranor on behalf of Platon for the royal holdings cultivated 
by Harendotes, at Sisine on account of ... for the ... 784% artabae of barley by the 
spending measure.’ 

2-3. airodsyos rod "Aynuatos: apart from the present passage @ynza only occurs among 
papyri of this period in P. Petrie III. 11 and 12 in personal descriptions, e.g. 12. 16 
Mlaxedav trav Tdtpwvos civraypa tod dynpatos. On that analogy rod adyjparos here might be 
dissociated from o:roddyos and explained as a description of Libanus. But this seems 
a strange addition after the specification of his office, and another explanation is suggested 
by a passage in C.P. R. 6. 3-4 80 émirn| pytaer| dyopavouias pep@v torapxias "Ayiplaros Tod iné|p 

AW 94 


Méudw ‘HpaxdeoroXrov. “Aynaros there clearly designates a locality; and it is significant 
that the nome is, most probably, the same as in our receipt (cf. 39, introd.). We are 
accordingly disposed to regard rov ’Aynparos as a geographical term (with réros understood) 
defining the sphere of Libanus, which would be a perfectly natural addition. The origin of 
the term remains obscure ; perhaps a large grant had been made in this neighbourhood to 
members of the bodyguard. 

5: KAnpous Bao|A(ixovs) : Cf. 85. 13 and 52. 26, note. 

7. The word lost at the beginning of the line is most probably the name of the place 
near which the xAjpoe were situated, and at which the payment would be expected, whereas 
it was actually made at Sisine; cf. P. Petrie III. 78. 2 & “Amiads tmep Avowayidos, &c. 
apao| after rovs is puzzling. The last is the only doubtful letter, and not more than two 
or three more are lost after it, if indeed there is anything missing at all. There may, 
however, have been an abbreviation, as inl. 5. A break occurs in the papyrus below this 
line, and it is possible that we are wrong in supposing the second fragment to join it 
directly, in which case 1. 7 might end with aya|; but there is a stroke in the lower fragment 
which just suits the tail of the v before «is. Perhaps eis rods ’Apdolcos (sc. kAnpous) Should be 
read; ef. 1L7. 3: and 178.72: 

8. pérpar dvnorixdr: cf. 74. 2, note. 

102. PaAyvmeEnT or Paysicitan- Tax. 

Mummy A. 12-3 X 16-5 cm. B.c. 248 (247). 

An undertaking, addressed in duplicate to a physician by a military settler, 
to pay Io artabae of olyra or 4 drachmae for the iatpixdy of the 38th year of 
Philadelphus. This impost for the maintenance of public physicians occurs 
amongst other taxes levied by the State upon military settlers in P. Petrie III. 
110 and 111, where 2 artabae of wheat are paid for it, and in 103. 9, where the 
charge is 5 artabae of olyra; but 102 is the only instance of the tarpixov being 
paid direct to the physician, though payments to darpof occur in private accounts 
of the Ptolemaic period, e.g. P. Tebt. 112. The note on the verso probably 
refers to the same tranSaction, in which a loan of some kind seems to have been 
involved. The writing is across the fibres. 

[epePedeue Kupn\y[alios trav Zoidrov iSidrns Evxdp|rjer iatpar xatpey. 

[réraxrar(?) oot dmoddceyv ddup(av) (dprdBas) « 7) Spaxpas Técoapas 76 

[kov Tod Ay (Erovs),| Tavras dé gor a(moddow) eu pynvi Aatoior edv € 
go\t pr a 

(70d dmoretow| ofole Tuy THs aptdBns éexdorns (Spaxpas) B. Eppwao. 

[ (Erovs) Al¢ Ilabu ¢. 


103. RECEIPTS 277 

eases Kupnvaio|s tav Zawtrov idiérns Evkdprar iarpar 
[Xaipev. réralkrar coi amoddécev ddupav aprdBas Séxka 4 Spa- 
[xHas Técoapa|s 7o larpikov Tob An (Erous), Tav’ras Sé€ col arro- 
06 , ‘ 7 IX O€ \ , bo > 7 r 
[Odom eu pnvi Ajlatciow eav d€ cot pi) am0dd amorEiow o{o|L 
10 [Tiny THs apta|Bns éxdo(rns) (Spaxpas) B. eppwao. (€rous) A¢ Tabu ¢. 

On the verso 

EXPHTATO Tapa . amauTos. 

*‘,.. Cyrenean, of Zoilus’ troop, private, to Eucarpus, physician, greeting. It has been 
ordered that I shall pay you ro artabae of olyra or 4 drachmae as the physician-tax for 
the 38th year. These I will pay you in the month Daisius; and if I fail to pay you, I will 
forfeit to you as the value of each artaba 2 drachmae. Good-bye. The 37th year, 
Pauni 6.’ 

2. That 4 drachmae should be the alternative (and therefore presumably the equivalent) 
of ro artabae of olyra gives rise to some difficulty. In 85. 15 and 119. 16 olyra is 
converted into wheat at the ratio of about 24: 1 ; but 4 drachmae would be expected to be 
equivalent at this period to 2 artabae of wheat (cf. 84 (a). 8-9, note), especially as 2 artabae 
of wheat are the charge for tavpixdév in P. Petrie III. r10 and 111; and this makes the ratio 
of olyra to wheat indicated by 102 not 24: 1 but 3: 1. 103. 9, on the other hand, where 
5 artabae of olyra are paid for tarpxdy, will be in agreement with P. Petrie III. rro if the 
ratio between olyra and wheat was 24: 1 as found in 85 and 119; and since the same 
ratio is also found in P. Tebt. 246 and 261 the circumstances in which 10 artabae of 
olyra were in 102 equivalent to only 4 drachmae were no doubt exceptional. That an 
artaba of olyra was really worth much more than 2 drachma is also indicated by the fact 
that its penalty value (I. 4) is 2 drachmae an artaba. This, which agrees with the penalty 
value of an artaba of olyra in 86. 12, 124, and P. Tor. 13 (second century B.c.), would, if 
olyra was normally worth nearly a drachma per artaba, not be exceptionally high, since 
the penalty value of grain is in the third century B.c. often twice its normal price ; cf. 88. 
13, note. In 90.15 the penalty value of olyra is apparently as high as 4 drachmae the 

3. Aagio.: this month probably corresponded in the main to Pauni at this period; cf. 
App.i. Since the document was written in Pauni of the 37th year, Daisius no doubt refers 
to the 38th. 

108. Recerpr ror Puysician-T ax AND Pottce-Tax. 

Mummy tro. 7 2+4 X 7-3 CM. BaCw 2230): 
Receipt for the payment, on behalf of a military settler, probably in the 
Kwitns tomos, of 5 artabae of olyra for the iarpixdv, or tax for the maintenance 
of physicians, and g artabae for @vAakirixdv, the police-tax ; cf. introd. to 102 

278 AI BETH (RAP Yr 

and 105, and 165, a similar receipt issued to the same person. The reign is no 
doubt that of Euergetes ; cf. 66-70 (4), which came from the same mummy. 

(“Erous) ¢ Paddu B, ddA(vpov) 0. 

‘Amoddogpavns Oc- 
opikwt xalpey. pe- 
perpypeOa mapa 
5 Xtpariov vrép 
Atoddépov Kepadddo- 
vos d€kavixod) Tov Zwidov 
dia Kwpo(ypapparéws) Evmridews 
(€rous) uf latpikoy oX(upa@v) €«, 
10 pu(AakitTikov) ddAupdv évvéa, / oXupar) 16. 
Eppwoo. (erous) i¢ 
Palag B. 
‘The 17th year, Phaophi 2: 14 artabae of olyra. 
‘Apollophanes to Theophilus, greeting. We have had measured out to us by Stratius on 
behalf of Diodorus son of Cephallon, decurion of Zoilus’ troop, through the comogrammateus 

Eupolis for the 17th year, 5 artabae of olyra as the physician-tax and g artabae of olyra as 
the police-tax ; total 14 artabae of olyra. Good-bye. The 17th year, Phaophi 2.’ 

1. The abbreviation of 6A(vpév) here and in ll. g-10 is a rounded A surmounted by 
a small o. 

6-8. Diodorus and Eupolis reappear in 104 and 165. For the abbreviation of 
dexanxds Cf. 81. 16, note. 


Mummy ro. 8:9 X 7:3.¢m. B.C. 225 (224). 

A receipt in duplicate issued by Eupolis the comogrammateus to Diodorus 
(cf. 108) for the imposts called rpinpdpxnpa and d.dywpa, the police-tax (on which 
see 105, introd.), and the tax on horses. These four taxes are found together 
with some others in P. Petrie II. 3g (e). The horse-tax is there mentioned but 
once under the name ¢dpos immwv, the amount paid being lost. Here it is 
simply called izmwv, and 1 drachma 5 obols are entered under that head. It 
belonged to the category of taxes on property, and was no doubt paid by 

NOs Sed A OIBIU ZT ES) 279 

Diodorus on the horse which his military duties obliged him to keep. The 
meaning of tpinpdpynpa and béidxoua is unknown. Smyly is probably right 
(P. Petrie III. p. 277) in doubting whether the former has any naval significa- 
tion, and in connecting it rather with the use of rpijpapxos in e. g. P. Petrie ITT. 
43 (3). 21, where the word apparently means an overseer of workmen. In 
P. Petrie II. 39 (e) the sums paid for these two taxes are 5 drachmae and 
4 drachmae 1 obol respectively. The corresponding amounts in 104 are 
6 drachmae 4} obols and 6 drachmae. 

(‘Erous) Bx Iai 2d. exer Ev- 

mlodts mapa A|oddpou 

eis TO BK (Eros) TplLnpdpxnua 

((Spaxpas)] 5 (rerpdBorov) (jpiwBerrov), dud xcopa (dpaxpxs) ¢, 
5 puirdakitixov) (Spaxpas) >, trmov (dpaxpyv) a (mevT@PBoror). 

(€rovs) kB Ilaiv dr. exer Ev- 
mods mapa [A100 \®pov 
Kepdddorvo[s els] 73 Bx [(Er0s) 
tpin{p|épxinua (Spaxpas) = (retp@Bodov) (jpiwBedov), 
10 [did]x[opa (Spaxpas) >, pu(Aakitikov) (Spaxpas) 5; 
[immov (Spaxprv) a (mevTBodor).| 
‘The zend year, Pauni 30. Eupolis has received from Diodorus for the 22nd year for 

rpinpapxnua 6 drachmae 43 obols, for d&dxona 6 drachmae, for police-tax 6 drachmae, for 
horse-tax 1 drachma 5 obols.’ 

1. Bx: other examples of this order are found e.g. in 110. 37, P. Petrie IL 13 (17). 3, 
Pa Mard. 3; 3. 
2. The omission of Kepaddovos (cf. |. 8) was an oversight. 

105. Receipr ror Porice-Tax. 

Mummy A 15. aI X 7 CM. BG 220) (2217))s 

A receipt for 2 artabae of wheat paid by a military settler belonging to the 
troop of Zoilus, probably at Phebichis, for the maintenance of the police. This 
impost is frequently mentioned in the Petrie papyri, where, besides the tax on 
land called gvAakirixdv ys (III. 112 (4%). 3-8) or simply gvdAakitixéy which 

280 HIBEH “PAPYVie! 

corresponds to the ¢vd. rod idiov KAjpov here, we hear of a gvdakizixdv levied 
upon sheep (Acias mpoBdror, III. 111. 8), animals for sacrifice (tepelwr, III. 109 (a). 
iv. 13), associations and workshops (é6vév kal épyaornptov, III. 32 (f). 2), and 
geese (xyvor, III. 112 (a). ii. 5). When levied upon land it was sometimes paid 
in money, I drachma per aroura being the rate found in III. 70 (a). i. 4, but more 
often in corn, as here, the annual amounts ranging from 12 artabae of wheat 
(III. 54 (0). d, verso 3) to 3 artabae (II. 39 (¢). 2). Cf. 148, another receipt with 
the same formula, 103. 10, where the charge is 9 artabae of olyra (equivalent to 
nearly 4 artabae of wheat ; cf. 85. 15), and 104, where 6 drachmae are paid for 
dvdakitixdv. The 19th year in 1. 1 refers more probably to Euergetes than to 

("Erouvs) 16 Ilatve xn. opodroyet Oco- 
Swpos pepeTpnabat mapa 

‘Epxdpuos tod X . piov id(épxov) Tov 
Zwirov TO yivdpevov pvdra- 

5 KitTtKoy Tod idlov KX(Hpov) mup(@v) dvo. 

‘The 19th year, Pauni 28. Theodorus agrees that he has had measured to him by 
Herkamis son of Ch..., captain of Zoilus’ troop, the due amount of the police-tax upon 
his own holding, two artabae of wheat.’ 

I. ©eddwpos is perhaps identical with the Theodorus in 75. 1, though the Theodorus 
here would be expected to be an official of the @ycavpés, a position which does not suit the 
Theodorus in 75. 

3. iA(dpyov): this abbreviation consists of a large with a small « underneath, and 
recurs in 148; cf. P. Petrie III. 54 (a).(4) ii. 5, where it appears to mean iA(dpyns). The 
circumstance that in 103. 7 the payer of iarpudy and gvdaxerixoy is a de(kavxds) makes 
ik(apxov) much more probable here than e. g. Ai(Svos). 

5. tdtov: cf. 90. 7, note. 

106. Receipt ror Beer- Tax. 

Mummy A 15. 10:2 X 7 cm. B.C. 246 (245). 

This and the following papyrus together with 186-142 form a series of 
receipts for the payment of (vrnpa in the second and third years of a king who 
is no doubt Euergetes. The payments are made into the Aoyevrtipiov at 
Phebichis, which village seems to have been a kind of centre of the finance 
administration of the Kwirys. The Aoyevrjporv, a term hitherto known only from 

10635 RECEIPTS 261 

Rev. Laws xi. 13, in these receipts (cf. 108. 2, 114. 7) occupies the place of the 
royal bank, and seems to be hardly distinguishable from it, since the recipient 
of the tax is the tpaze¢irns, with whom is coupled the doxipacrtis. The close 
association of these two officials (cf. 108. 4, where the doxiacrys is apparently 
found acting for the rpameirns, and 41, a letter concerning a doxiacris) casts 
a new light on the functions of the doxiyaor7s, who up to now has only been 
mentioned in P. Leyden Q and P. Petrie III. 50.2. From the Leyden papyrus, 
a receipt for 20 drachmae on account of dzépoupa (cf. 109) paid over by 
a doxiactys tO a mpaxtwp in circumstances which are rather obscure, it 
has been supposed that the doxiyacr7js was particularly concerned with the, especially with conversions of payments in kind into money (Wilcken, 
Ost. I. pp. 361-2). The Hibeh texts, however, indicate that his functions were 
much wider, and that he acted as a check on the tpaze¢irns in the same way 
as the dvtvypadev’s controlled the ofxovdywos, thus affording another illustration 
of a favourite Ptolemaic practice. In 41 the collection of arrears of taxation 
and the selling of oil manufactured by the government appear among the duties 
of a dokipacrtiHs, and doxiyuaoraf are mentioned in 29. 19 in an obscure context. 
An impost called doxipaorixdv, apparently a charge for the maintenance of 
doxactat, occurs in 110. 44 and perhaps in 29. 24. 

Besides the rpame¢itns and doximaorns who issue this series of receipts, other 
officials were generally present; in one instance (107. 5) the oixovéuos, but in 
most cases Dorion, whose title where it occurred in 107. 4 is lost (but may have 
been émuorarns if he is identical with the Dorion in 72. 4), and whose signature 
has usually been appended at the end of the receipts. The payments are made 
by different persons who are all agents of an inhabitant of Talaé called Taémbes. 
Whether he was the tax-collector or the tax-payer is not clear; but from 108, 
in which the general formula is similar and the person in 1. 5 corresponding 
to the agents of Taémbes here is the tax-payer’s representative, not the tax- 
collector, we prefer to suppose that Taémbes is the person upon whom the 
Curnpa is levied, and to make these payments parallel to those mentioned in 
P. Petrie III. 37 (4). verso iv. 15 sqq., where kai mapa tév CvToTOLOY TénTUK\ EV’) 
mapa Ilayarwos ... xad(xod) py «.7.A. is found in an account of, probably, a royal 
bank. This interpretation will fit in very well with the generally-received view 
of the (urnpa (cf. Wilcken, Os¢. I. pp. 369-73), that it was a tax on the profits 
of beer-manufacture, but a good many points connected with the taxes upon 
that important industry are still in doubt. The sums paid by Taémbes’ 
agents consist of monthly instalments ranging from 8 drachmae (138) to 20 
(106. 8) in copper, the rate of which is three times (106. 8, 107. 7, and 188; in 
137 the figures are obliterated) given as apparently 244 obols for a stater. This 

282 BE AP Yer 

extremely small addition to the rate of 24 obols for a stater found in the case 
of those taxes in which the government accepted copper at par is in accordance 
with the evidence of P. Par. 62. v. 19, that in the second century B.C. the (urnpd 
was an opi) zpos xaAxov iodvonov. The extra + obol per stater or approximately 
I per cent., which is levied in the Hibeh texts, probably corresponds to the extra 
charges of 1 per cent. for émtoxevy and 2 per cent. for transport which are 
mentioned in connexion with the (urypa in the Paris papyrus. Above each 
receipt is a brief summary, and at the end of each are a few words of demotic. 
The writing is in most cases, including 106, across the fibres. 

("“Ezous) B Aév{[p A, (Spaxpai)] x. 

(€rous) B "AOdp A. wémT@Kev 
emi 76 eu PeBixt AoyevTHpioy 
700 Kwirov IIdowvt tpare- 
5 ¢itnt Kat Yroroynte Soxt- 
paoThe mapa ‘Apevddrov rob) mapa TaeuBéovs 
ex Taddn (utnpas els Tov 
Addp yxa(Akod) e’s KO (réraprov ?) (Spaxpds) cikoot, 7 xk. 
and hand [malpév7(ols Awpiwvos. 
1 line of demotic. 

6. apevSwrov ro(v) mapa above the line. 

‘The 2nd year, Athur 30: zo dr. The 2nd year, Athur 30. Harendotes, agent of 
Taémbes from Talaé, has paid into the collecting office of the Koite toparchy at Phebichis, 
to Pason, banker, and Stotoétis, controller, for the beer-tax on account of Athur twenty 
drachmae of copper at 24% obols (for a siater), total zo. In the presence of Dorion.’ 

8. xd (réraprov): very little of the 8 is left; but the traces are inconsistent with e or ¢, 
and cf. 107. 7, where 4 is certain. There is more doubt about the fraction ; all that 
remains is a piece of a horizontal stroke joining the sign for drachmae. If it represents 
1 obol, which is usually written “], the writer must on reaching the end of the horizontal 
stroke have drawn his pen back a little way before making the down stroke, just as he usually 
does in writing r. The only alternative is to read (1pr@Bedov), but we hesitate to introduce 
a rate which would be necessarily different from those found in 107. 7 (cf. note) and 188 ; 
and if, as is likely, the rate is the same in all three cases, 243 is the only suitable number. 

102 "RECEIPTS 283 

107. Recerer For Beer-Tax. 

Mummy A 15. 6-5 X7:20m. B.C. 244 (243). 

Another receipt for beer-tax similar to 108, but mentioning in Il. 3-4 the 
presence of two officials ; cf. 106, introd. The writing is across the fibres. 

[(“Erovs) y IIatv dX, (Spaxpai) | 

(€rous) y ITaive dX. wéntlolkely emi 7d ev 
PeBixer ro(yevTyptov) Nixorder rp(amegirn) [kai Sroropre 
do(kipacrhl) mapévtos Awpiwvos [........ Kal 
5 Znvodepov oikovdpov malpx....... 
a7los Tov) mapa TaeuBéovs ex [Taran ¢utnpas 
els Tov Ilaiv efs «6 (réraprov) (Spaypas) &....... 
and hand (érovs) y Iaiv d, mapévros Alwpiwvos. 
1 line of demotic. 

4. The missing title is perhaps émorarov ; cf. 106, introd. In 108. 3 the Bacwrrkis 
ypapparevs is associated with the otxoyduos in a similar context, but is named second, 

7. The supposed sign for 4 obol has the horizontal portion longer and more curved 
than usual ; but it is certainly not the symbol for 4 obol, nor can it be satisfactorily regarded 
as a combination of the two, especially since + is certainly the only fraction found in 188 
where the preceding 6 is doubtful, and in 106. 8 the doubtful symbol may represent 4 or + 
obol, but not both; cf. note ad loc. 

108. Receipt ror Batru-Tax. 
Mummy A 16. 8-2 x 6-3 cm. B.C. 258 (257) or 248 (247). 

A receipt with a formula very similar to that of 106-7, issued by a Aoyev- 
tnpiov for the payment of 10 drachmae on account of the bath-tax, probably 
a general impost levied for the construction and maintenance of public baths ; 
cf. note on 1. 7. The papyrus comes from the same piece of cartonnage as the 
correspondence of Leodamas (45-50), and the date is probably the 27th or 37th 
year of Philadelphus. 


(‘Exovs) [.\¢ Bapplob0c .. mémr@key emt 70 
ev Pis oyevTHpiov di olkov[dpov 
Awoddpov Kat Baoidixod yplappatéws) [.... 
[Oc]odépar tpamegi[rnt] di& (doxe- 

5 [p]acrod “Qpov mapa IIv....... 
brép Anpopwvtos [.......-- 
Badaveiov rod) mevrek[at......- (€rovs) 

[(Spaxpas) dléxa. 

‘/.)7th year, Pharmouthi..P... has paid on behalf of Demophon into the collecting 
office at Phus through Diodorus, oeconomus, and . . ., basilicogrammateus, to Theodorus, 
banker, through Horus, controller, for the bath-tax of the [.|5th year ro drachmae.’ 

2. bis: a village of the Heracleopolite nome, probably in the Kwérns ; cf. C. P. R. 64. 12. 

4. [doxyu\acrod: cf. 106, introd. 

4. Badavelov: cf. 112. 96 and Badaveiov as the title of a tax in P. Petrie III. 37 (4). verso 
4, 119 (a). 2, and 121(a).14. On the bath-tax, which was in Roman times called Sadavixdr, 
see Wilcken, Os¢. I. pp. 165-70. His argument from the silence of the ostraca, that this 
impost was introduced by Augustus, is now shown to be incorrect. Wilcken hesitates 
between two interpretations, (1) a general tax for the maintenance by the State of public 
baths, (2) a charge for the use of public baths levied in the form of a tax upon only those 
persons who used them. The former view seems to us much more likely, especially as 
small charges for the use of baths (generally 4 obol) are common in private accounts of the 
earlier Ptolemaic period, e.g. P. Petrie III. 132-42, and are clearly distinct from the tax 
called Badavelwv. That public baths were not in all cases owned by the government appears 
from 116, where the tax rpiry Badavetwy occurs. This, on the analogy of e.g. rpiry 
repiorepovev, seems to be an impost of 4 upon the profits of privately owned baths. The 
supply of bathing-establishments in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt must have been surprisingly 


109. ReEcEIPT FOR a@mropoipa, 

Mummy 83. 4°5 X 10-9 cM. B.C. 247-6. 

Two receipts for payments of 10 and 5 drachmae respectively on account 
of the tax of 4 on the produce of vineyards and gardens, otherwise called the 
azéuowpa. For the history of this impost, the benefit of which was transferred 
in the 23rd year of Philadelphus from the temples to the deified Arsinoe (whence 
the name ékr7 PiradéAdar, e.g. in 182), cf. Rev. Laws pp. 119 sqq., Wilcken, 
Ost. I. pp. 157 sqq- and 615, P. Tebt. 5. 51, note, and Otto, Prteszer und Lempel, 
I. pp. 340-56. In the present case the tax was levied upon a palm-garden, 
and therefore in money, and the two payments were for a single year. 




[. . ofkovéluov Apioroyér{ns| Klat 
[..... 70] map avrov kali Tov 
[HeTOX@|y els THY ¢ ToD Teody- 
[Spov doil\yikavos tov mpos THL 
5 [tocxyjoer] els 7d AO (Eros) Xadkod 
[mpos apy]ipiov (dpaxpas) déka, 7% (dpaxpal) t. 


Tpamecirne Kab... 3 « dokt- 
pala|rie Apiotoyévn[s Kal..... 
TO Tap avTay Kai Tay peTt[oxov 
10 els THy ¢ TOO Tecdvdpov dpovik|o- 
vos Tod mpols [THe Sioluxjoer eis 7d dO [(ETOS) 
XaAKod mpods dpytpiov (Spaypas) wévte, / (Spaxpai) «. 

ll. 7-12. ‘Aristogenes and ... (have paid to)..., banker and ..., controller, the 
amount due from them and their partners for the tax of 4 upon the palm-garden of 
Teisander, the finance official, for the 39th year, in copper on the silver standard five 
drachmae, total 5 drachmae.’ 

1. Either da... oixovd|you or mapévtos ... oikovd |nou may be restored ; cf. 107. 5-6, 108. 2. 

4-5. Tov mpos tie [dvonoer] may refer to powrkdvos, but is more easily explained if 
connected with Te:cdvdpov: this use of pds in describing officials is extremely common ; cf. 
e.g. P. Tebt. 30. 18 trav 8€ mpos rats ypappareias. 6 mpos the Stocxnoee may well be, like 6 emi 
ris dunoews in Rev. Laws, a periphrasis for é:oKxnrns. Aristogenes and his partners were 
probably lessees of Tisander. 

5. AO (éros): the last (revenue) year of Philadelphus; cf. 53. 4, note and App. ii. 
p- 364. 

5-6. xadkoid [mpos dpy|vprov: cf.'70(a).9,note. Down to the reign of Epiphanes the money 
payments for dmépyopa had to be made either in silver or in copper at a discount. Later in 
the second century B.c., as is shown by Wilcken, Os/. no. 1518, copper was accepted at par. 

4-8. On the association of rparegirns and Soxiyaorns cf. 106, introd. 

286 BIBIGH (RAP Viet 


110. Accounts: PosTaL REGISTER. 
Mummy 18. 19-4 X 30:5¢m. Recto about B.c.. 270; Verso about B.c. 255. 

The recto of this papyrus contains a long account apparently of a private 
or semi-private character, but kept by some person in the government service, 
since the document on the verso is clearly official. The account is in three 
columns; but of the first only ends of lines remain, and these are almost all 
occupied with a list of cduara which are reckoned at sums varying from 1 obol 
to 23 obols, e.g. cdpara «| dv(a) (SvdBodovs) / (Bpaxpal) y (dvdBorou), ZAda 8 (Spaxmn) 
a|...Jreos cdpata xn av(a) (SvoBdrovs) (jprwBértov) / (Spaxpat) va (retpeéorov),— 
no doubt a wages account. Near the top of the column occurs Jopov kAjpwt 
and at the bottom a mention of... ¢z7wv (dpaxpal) « and gowlkwv. Col. ii and 
the upper part of Col. iii are occupied with an account of corn, some of which 
was transported to Alexandria, and interesting details are given of expenses 
en route. The lower portion of the third column contains a few short money 
accounts, and concludes with three lines which belong to the document on 
the verso. 

This is of a more novel and important character. It is a record of the 
arrival at and departure from some intermediate station of letters and other 
documents sent to or from the king or high officials, and affords a most 
interesting glimpse into the management and nature of the State postal-service. 
Careful note is made of the day and hour of the arrival of each messenger, 
his name and that of the clerk who received and issued letters at the office, 
the number and addresses of the packets, and the names of the messengers 
to whom they were handed on. The day-book in the registered letter depart- 
ment of a modern post-office can hardly be more methodical and precise. The 
documents forwarded are mostly described as xvAcoroi (usually abbreviated 
x, but written out in Il. 51, 73, and 110), i.e. ‘rolls, which are apparently 
distinguished from émuorodat, ‘letters’ (Il. 57, 98, 107); but the difference was 
perhaps one of size rather than of contents. That the register on the verso 
was not separated by any wide interval of time from the account on the recto, 
which was drawn up soon after the 14th year, is shown by the mention of 


Apollonius, the well-known dioecetes in the 27th-32nd years; cf. 44. 3, note. 
The locality of the postal bureau is not clearly defined. The writer of the recto 
had business concerns at Hiera Nesus in the south of the Fayiim, and Plutarchus 
and Criton, who are mentioned in Col. ii, are known from other papyri to have 
been connected with that neighbourhood ; cf. introd. to 68. But Phebichis in 
the Kwirns rémos is referred to in 1. 36; and that is a much more suitable scene 
for the composition of the official register, which points decidedly to some town 
in the Nile valley as its provenance. Preceding the two columns of the verso 
which we print there remain the ends of a few lines of another much effaced 
column, but they add no information. 

Recto. Colin 

exo mapa ITohéuwvos (rupav) (4p7dBas) g, 
Kal map ‘Aydbwvos [plalo,] 
Tapa ipou kg, 
kal wmép EvBotdov kK, 
& va tha. JL eis 76 ‘Hpaxidljelor a, 
Kat eis 70 vatdov t (Spaxpay) Ki | 
ITXovrdépxwt «, doilmai rr. 
TovTay éyévovTo &..[..].[.... .Jov 
eyBorny [.lovy . uovos .[...]u[.].. cov a, 
10 Pirokre? els Ta EmiTHdeva [e,| / a0. 
empdbnoav av(x) (Spaxpas) & (revtdBodov), / (Spaxpal) “Auka. 
~ QaBov 8 Kal KpiOiy rap’ ‘Ay[d\Ocevos pt 
tovtwv IIouvrdépyar kx, Nowra g. 
TovToy didpeTpa aL alTomerpikoy [Z,] 
15 Aoitral my. eémpdbnoav dvr(&) ((Spaxpyv)| a (TprdBodrov) (ipo- 
J (Opaxpat) prO (dvéBoror). 
cixov b¢ kal Kpirwm tév K (dptaBav) tay (mupav) (Spaxpas) p, 
kal vaddov [[rwv]| tv tupdy Kal Kpibdv exw (Spaypds) ce. 
els Tatra tye Kpirwy ypvoiov my, 
20 apyuptov (Spaxpas) vpn. 
 dviopa Tov aizlolu ep ‘Iepar Nijcat odxxous B (rerpéBoror), 
gudaxitika ap ‘Iepas Nijoov éws Adefavdpelas (Spaxpal) 06, 






émi pudakns ypla\upatixov (Opaxpal) 6, Tat mapep.. nprol.| (Spaxpr ?) a, 

eu Méudec ypappatixoy (dpaxpi) a. , emt tas Kato gpu[dajx(jjs) 

[év] Syediar (Spaxpat) 6, [. .JAa. [. .Jv (Spaxpai) t, ev "Al AcEJar[ Specar] 

Tecalpxjat (dpaxpal) €, ypapparixoy (dpayxpal) [....... ] (rupav) 

tiv (adpTaBnv) (jplwBérwov ?), 7 (dpaxpat) Kd (rpi@Bodrov), [.]. vet. . a 
Kp(LOns) (Spaxpal) ¢ [(dvoBorov), 

14. Ovaperpa: Pap. 


TéAos (Spaxpal) og, vadNov (dpaypat).., avre- 

ypaget tov PidokAéov[s........ 

Tpameirnt SOokimaotikdd....... 

amd Syxedias vabdrov eis modu [(Spaxpat).. , 

avamdéovres vadAov (dpaxpai) Bi 

els TovTo elxov mapa Kpite|vos (Spaxpas) . . 
— (erovs) 8 "Emel B. 

Adyou yevouévov IIdovrdpy[ar 

éu DeBixt. mpocwpeiAnoa ovdv ue 

aw Kat dudakiziKois Tov yt [(€rous) . 

kal ‘Apiotdpxov 7d mav (Spaxpas) Me 

KptOav (aprdBas) te. 

~ (€rous) 18 ep lepéws [led cepewis]]......... tToU Kax- 
“Atindous’ nvos Avompoly eyel cs. 2's ess, « 

mapa IIdouvrdpy[oly 5 KalréBade........... 
kal Mynovotpara (Spaxpas) € rokloly [du pava (Spaypar) . 
dddas Exel (Erovs) vy ep lepews Neal... . rod. 

oxréous pn(vos) Awiov as Woxey ‘An[odrd\.ovier 

(Spaxpas) € réxov Tiu pava (Spaxpar) 0. [ 
— ddXas 108 adrod (Erovs) pnvos ‘Yre[pBe- 

petaiov [e’xlev (Spaxpas) & ds KaréBadey ['Azon- 

[A]ovior rat gudakirne ToKov Tou 

unva (Opaypaor) e. 

110. ACCOUNTS 289 

and hand kvdorol ¢, ¢ Baowdt y Kall émo- 





Tohqv, Ocevyéve Xpnuataywy[ar . , 
Arodroviols] [Oleoulclnirale fc... oe. 

48. (dpaypas) € above the line. 

Verso. Colk u:, 


(oS ER UN gee eel ae aga 
(AnJeédvBpan =, rloWroy (BaciAci 
ITro[A}epater xu(dords) a, Arod[Ajor[ijor d{cor- 
[kn]rme Ku(Acoros) a, é€mictodal Sto mpos Tax 
[kvA}oTa@e mpoodedeypu(évat), Avridxar Kpnti Ku(dcords) a, Mnvfo- 
d[@pw]e ku(ALcrTos) a, XeN.Jo. [. Jac €v ddd Ku(AaTds) a, 
A[A]éEavdpos dé mapéSoxlev NcKod7 por. 
@pas éwbivis mapédaxey Doing ‘Hpa- 
KAeiTou 6 vedtepos Maxedav 
(ckatovrdpoupos) ‘Auiv(ov\. Kudordv) a Kat Td agiov Paviau,] 
dé mapéd@xev Oevypharar. 
@pas mpérns mrapédwxev Ocvyp[yjo- 
Tos dvobev Auviae Ku(duorods) y, L Baowdé 
[TroXepaior Ku(\corol) B, Arodd\ovtar 
OtoxnrAe Ku(AtoTds) a, Auvias de Trape- 
doxev ‘Imrodtoa. 
mapeédaxev Spas > Doing ‘HpakXeirou 
6 mpeaBvTepos Maxeday (€xarovrdépoupos) 
‘Hpakdeomodirov trav mpdérov Egonj{.] . [. . 
KuMotov a Davia, ‘Auiver [de Trapé[d]ox(€) 
@pas 1a tralpléd[alk[e N¢\xddnpos 
Karobev ‘Are€dvdpan Ku(AlaTous) . , map{a& 
Bacithéos IT r0r€(pai)ou Avridxar els 
‘Hpakdeorodirny kr(dordv) a, Anpntpia|c] 


TOL Mpos THL Xopnylale Tov ededavroly 
80 eis Tv OnBaida kr(\orov) a, ‘ImmoreA[n]e 
Tot map ‘Avtidxou Kata ‘Avdpor{i}xou 
ev ‘ArédXNwvos TOM THE pEeyadAnt 
ku(ALaTov) a, 7 mapa Baothéws I roXepaiolv 
Ocevyévnt xpnparalyw|ya ku(ducTov) a, 
85 ‘Hpakdeoddpar «is tiv] OnBaida [ku(Accrov) a,| 
Zoihor tpamecirne ‘Epporonir[ou] ku(\corov) [a, 
Atovuctwt oikov(dp)at els tov Apowvoirn{y Ku(Atoror)] a, 

58. mpoodedeyp(evar) added above the line. 60. This line inserted later. 61, er of 

npakXetrov Corr. 66. 1. dvw6ev: so in Il. 107, 109. 71. « of paxedov corr. from 6. 
75. wpa over an erasure. 76. |. kdr@bev: so in], 98. 
Col. iii. 

Vestiges of three lines. 
gt k. @pas [.] mapédwlx[ev A]uxoxrARs Ap{ivor 
ku(rtatovs) y, ¢£ [BlalorJAt [II rojAeu{allou [. . .] Tov edAepdlvTov 
Tav kalT]a Oa. .]. coov Ku(duoTds) a, ‘Amodda[vion 
Oilolixntne Ku(AcoTos) a, “E[pluirmo[t] rae an[d Tod 
95 TAnpopatos Ku(toTos) a, Apivey dé m apéda- 
Kev ‘Immodvoat. 
Ka. @pas ¢ mapédwxer [.Jevade.[...... 
Karobev Paviar emtoro[rAd|s d¥o [....... ; 
“Qpos S& mapédwxev Aror{u|oia ..[....... 
100 KB. wpas mpdrns malpléd@xey Al. .Jov [Awiau 
ku(dtaTovs) ts, £ Baothet TIrodepail@}e x[v(AcoTol) . 
Tapa Tav eehdvTov Tov KaTa Oal... coou, 
ArodrAwviet Siorxnthe Ku(AcoTol) O.[... 2... 
Avridyot Kpnrti ku(dcorol) 6, Awias dt [mapédo- 
105 Kev Nixodypar. 
kB. @pas (8 tapédoxey Aéwy "A[pivorr 
dvobev Baotht IIroXcpator [Kv(ALcoTovs) . , 

Apivey S& rapexey [‘I}rn[odvoou. 

M0: “ACCOUNTS 291 

ky. €oOivas dvobev Ta[péjow[keyv..... 
110 Tipoxpatns Kudorod{s . ‘Areédvdpar, 
L Baowdt Trodepaier x[u(Acorol) . , ’ArodAXN@vlwr 
OvorxntHe Ku(Acords) a, IT... .. Xpnpara- 
yoyo. Ku(\tords) a, TTapixl......... KU(ALTOS) « 
Anégavdpos dé malpéSoxeyv ...... 

97. « Of mapedoxev above a 6. 

1-50. ‘I have received from Polemon 90 artabae of wheat, and from Agathon 194, 
from Simus 27, and on behalf of Eubulus 20, total 331; of which 1 was paid to the 
temple of Heracles, 10 for freightage at 20 drachmae, and 20 to Plutarchus, remainder 300. 
Of these were expended for...1, to Philocles for necessaries 5, total 294. They were 
sold at 4 dr. 5 ob., making 1421 dr. I also received barley from Agathon to the amount 
of 110 artabae, of which Plutarchus had 20, remainder go. Out of these were expended 
for difference on measure 14, measuring fee 3, remainder 88. They were sold at 1 dr. 
33 Ob., total 139 dr. 2 ob. I also had for Criton, for the 20 artabae of wheat, 40 dr., and 
I have as freightage of the wheat and barley 15 dr. For this Criton has 950 dr. in gold 
and 448 dr. in silver. Expense of the corn at Hiera Nesus, 2 sacks 4 ob., guards’ fees 
from Hiera Nesus to Alexandria 14 dr., at the guard-house for scribes’ fees 4 dr., to... 

1 dr., at Memphis scribes’ fees 1 dr. [.| ob., at the lower guard-house at Schedia BOP sy oe 

10 dr., at Alexandria to Tisarchus 5 dr., scribes’ fees..dr.,...0n the wheat at % ob. 
the artaba 24 dr. 3 ob.,...0n the barley 7 dr. 2 ob., tax 76 dr., freightage . . dr., to the 
antigrapheus of Philocles . . ., to the banker for controller's fees. . ., freightage from Schedia 

to the city . . drachmae, sailing up, freightage 2 dr.; for this I had from Criton . . dr. 

‘The 14th year, Epeiph 2. Account taken with Plutarchus at Phebichis. I owed an 
additional sum, with expenses and guards’ fees for the 1 3th year...and Aristarchus, of 
altogether 3/.| drachmae and 15 artabae of barley. 

‘The rath year, in the priesthood of ... son of Callimedes, in the month Dystrus. 
. .. has from Plutarchus 60 drachmae at the interest of '.| dr. a month, which sum he paid 
to... and Mnesistratus. He also has in the 13th year in the priesthood of Nea... son of 
. .. ocles, in the month Loius, 60 dr. more, at the interest of 4 dr.a month, which he gave 
to Apollonius. He also had in the same year in the month Hyperberetaeus 60 drachmae 
more, which he paid to Apollonius the guard, at the interest of 5 dr. a month,’ 

6. If there is nothing lost after x the price will be the common one of 2 dr. the artaba; 
cf 1. 17. 

g. Perhaps [rot xypavos, but the « is not satisfactory and the meaning quite obscure. 

11. The high price, more than double the usual rate (cf. note on 1. 6), is presumably 
due to the fact that the sale took place in Alexandria. The price of the barley in 1. 15 is 
also rather higher than usual (it is normally about 1 dr. 1 ob., i.e. 2 of 2 dr.; cf. notes on 
84 (a). 8-9, 85. 14-5), but the difference is not nearly so marked as in the case of the 

14. Sidperpoy is used of soldiers’ allowances, ‘rations’ in Plut. Vz, Dem. 40, and some 
such sense would not be inappropriate here. But dudperpa may well be equivalent to dudpopa 
perpov; cf.e.g. P. Petrie III. 129. 3 Siapopoy drnrwrixar. The ouroperpixdy was no doubt 
a payment for the services of the otrouérpys, and thus analogous to the gvAakirixd and 

U 2 


ypapparixéy Which follow; cf. P. Tebt. II. 520, where 3 art. of wheat are paid cir@perpov, 
and P. Oxy. 740. 25. 

17-20. The meaning of the dative Kpirwx and the connexion of these entries with 
what precedes are not clear. If xpuciov 950 means the value in gold of 950 dr. of silver, the 
two sums named in Il. 19-20 together go far to make up the total price of the wheat and 
barley in Il. 11 and 16. They may therefore perhaps represent the balance left after 
deducting the expenses enumerated in the next section, Il. 21 sqq.; but as the items are 
imperfectly preserved verification is not possible. 

21. gdkkovs 8: these may be either empty sacks which were bought for 4 obols, or full 
sacks which together with the 4 ob. had to be expended. 4 ob. could not represent the 
price of two full sacks. 

22. The context shows that @udakerixd here do not mean the tax so-called (cf. 105, 
introd.), but payments for the services of pudakira in charge of the boat; cf. 54. 30. 

23. ypayparixdy: this impost is found in a variety of contexts, and is to be explained as 
a charge for the benefit of the numerous ypappareis ; cf. P. Tebt. I. 61 (4). 342-5, note, and 
97, introd. The word before (Spaxuj) may be a proper name preceded by zap’ or Tapa. 

2. Syedia was a place of some importance on the canal connecting Alexandria with 
the Canopic branch of the Nile, and had a custom-station in Strabo’s time; cf. Strabo, 
xvii. 800. In P. Fay. ro4. 21, an account somewhat similar to this, 2 xedias should also 
be read. The word before (Spaxpai) « is possibly vai{Ao, but if so the space after the 
preceding numeral is broader than usual. 

26. Tetod pyloc: a proper name seems likely, but the reading is doubtful. The first 
letter if not t may be = or o, and the termination may be a. 

27. A charge of 3 ob.on the artaba reckoned on 294 art. (1. 10) and 88 art. (I. 15) 
produces 24 dr. 3 ob. and 7 dr. 2 ob. The name of this impost was given in the lacuna 
before (mupdv) in 1. 26, and probably coincided with the mutilated word before xp(:@7s) in 
|. 27. The abbreviation for «p(6js) is written as a « with a loop at the top of the vertical 

30. Soxiacrixold: a charge for the Soxpaorys, on whom cf. 106, introd. The 8ox:pac- 
rixév is also found in 29. 24 and P. Leyden Q. 12; cf. Wilcken, Os. I. pp. 361-2. 

36. dvnr\opalow: cf. 1. 21. 

37. ye ((érous): cf. for the order of the numerals 104. 1, note. 

42. For kalréSare cf. 1. 48, but 6 is awkward with (8paxuds) following. 

44. Ned pxov rod Ne|oxdéouvs would be about the right length. y in the number of the 
year is rather tall, but to suppose that some other figure, e.g. a, was written with a stroke 
above it, is less satisfactory. 

45. ‘AnlodAdovior: cf. 1. 48. 

51-3. These lines form part of the register on the verso, but there is no date cr other 
indication of their intended position. We restore kali émo|rodjv on the analogy of |. 57, but 
the construction requires émorohy.  Ocvyévns the xpypataywyds Tecurs in 1. 84; the title 
appears to be new. 

s5-114. ‘... delivered to Alexander 6 rolls; of these 1 roll was for king Ptolemy, 
1 roll for Apollonius the dioecetes and two letters which were received in addition to the 
roll, r roll for Antiochus the Cretan, 1 roll for Menodorus, 1 roll contained in another (?) 
for Chel . . ., and Alexander delivered them to Nicodemus. The 17th, morning hour, 
Phoenix the younger, son of Heraclitus, Macedonian owning 100 arourae, delivered to 
Aminon 1 roll and the price for Phanias; and Aminon delivered it to Theochrestus. The 
18th, rst hour, Theochrestus delivered to Dinias 3 rolls from the upper country, of which 
2 rolls were for king Ptolemy and 1 for Apollonius the dioecetes, and Dinias delivered them 


to Hippolysus. The 18th, 6th hour, Phoenix the elder, son of Heraclitus, Macedonian 
owning roo arourae in the Heracleopolite nome, one of the first company of E.. ., delivered 
1 roll for Phanias, and Aminon delivered it to Timocrates. The roth, 11th hour, 
Nicodemus delivered from the lower country to Alexander [.| rolls, from king Ptolemy 
for Antiochus in the Heracleopolite nome 1 roll, for Demetrius, the officer in charge 
of supplies for the elephants, in the Thebaid 1 roll, for Hippoteles the agent of 
Antiochus accusing Andronicus (?) at Apollonopolis the Great 1 roll, from king Ptolemy to 
Theogenes the money-carrier 1 roll, for Heracleodorus in the Thebaid 1 roll, for Zoilus, 
banker of the Hermopolite nome, 1 roll, for Dionysius, oeconomus in the Arsinoite nome, 
1roll. The 20th, .. hour, Lycocles delivered to Aminon 3 rolls, of which 1 roll was for 
king Ptolemy from the elephant-country below Th ..., 1 roll for Apollonius the dioecetes, 
1 roll for Hermippus, member of the staff of workmen (?), and Aminon delivered them to 
Hippolysus. The 21st, 6th hour, ... delivered two letters from the lower country for Phanias, 
and Horus delivered them to Dionysius... . The 22nd, rst hour, A... delivered 
to Dinias 16 rolls, of which [.| rolls were for king Ptolemy from the elephant-country below 
Th..., 4 rolls for Apollonius the dioecetes, 4 rolls for Antiochus the Cretan, and Dinias 
delivered them to Nicodemus. The 22nd, r2th hour, Leon delivered to Aminon from the 
upper country [.| rolls for king Ptolemy, and Aminon delivered them to Hippolysus. The 
23rd, morning hour, Timocrates delivered to Alexander [.| rolls, of which [.} rolls were for 
king Ptolemy, 1 roll for Apollonius the dioecetes, 1 roll for P ... the money-carrier, |.| roll 
for Par ..., and Alexander delivered them to...’ 

54. The traces at the beginning of the line do not suit pas or rapédaxev. avabev 
probably occurred somewhere in the line, since one of the letters was for the king; cf. 
ll. 66 and 107. 

55. Possibly xu(Accrovs) stood as usual before the numeral, but there is no trace of it and 
the space is somewhat narrow. Alexander, Aminon, Dinias, and Horus occupy an inter- 
mediate position in the transmission of letters, as contrasted e.g. with Hippolysus and 
Nicodemus, who only bring in letters or take them away. Probably the former were 
officials at the postal-station. 

59. ev d\Awe appears to mean ‘ contained ina second roll,’ and if this packet is counted 
as 2 rolls the number 6 in 1. 55 is correct. 

63. 7d aéov apparently means the sum paid by Phoenix at the office for postage. 
Such payments do not occur elsewhere in the document, and high officials would naturally 
have had the services of State messengers gratis. The sender of this particular letter 
may therefore be supposed to have been some unauthorized person, who would have to 
pay for the privilege of utilizing the messenger’s services. ‘There is, however, no mention 
of a payment in connexion with a letter sent by the brother of Phoenix (Il. 70-4). 

72. Tay mpotwv Egor ...: a similar military title is found in an unpublished Tebtunis 
papyrus of the third century B.c. ray MeveAdov mpwray ek tod ‘EppomoXirov kal (ékarov- 

79. Cf. Il. gt-2 and r1o2, P. Petrie II. 20. iv. 8 év Méeupe ehépacwv, 40 (a). 22 9 
ehehavrnyd s| 7 év Bepevixnt, III. 114. 16 ris 6y(pas) rev eAepavtrwy. An inscription found at 
Edfu is dedicated to Philopator by the orparnyds dmoaraXeis eri thy Onpav tay ehepdrrar ; cf. 
Dittenberger, Or. Gr. Znscr. I. 82, with his note ad /oc., and I. 86. 

81. ‘Avdpor{i|kov is doubtful, especially the termination. 6p may be a and the second v 
could well be pz. 

83. Between a and mapa is a diagonal stroke with a rounded top, the meaning of which 
is obscure. 

84. xpnparalywlyau: cf, Il, 51-3, note, 


92-3. [napa] rv edepdvrav would be expected ; cf. 1. 102 and mapa Baoidéos in |. 83. 
But there is not room for wapd in the lacuna, the size of which requires za(pa) or aré. 
@d..]. caov, which recurs in 1. 102, seems to be a geographical name; the second letter 
may be ». 

95. mAjpopa is used in several of the Petrie papyri for a company of workmen, e. g. 
III. 43 (3). 12; but whether the term has a similar sense here is doubtful. 

97. The « of zapédexev is a correction ; possibly the syllable xev was written twice and 
the name of the messenger was ’Adé£/aySpos. He would, however, be different from the 
’anrééavSpos in Il. 55 and 114, who was one of the clerks at the office. “pa may have 
occurred at the end of the line; cf. l. 99. To read & ’Areg[ardpeia, which at first 
sight looks attractive, is inadmissible on several grounds: (1) it would imply that this 
register was kept in the immediate neighbourhood of that city, which is a most unlikely 
hypothesis ; (2) there is no part of Egypt which could be described as xdrwOev (1. 98) 
relatively to Alexandria ; (3) mapéSexev requires a subject. 

100. Aféjev might be read after wa[p|éexev, but Leon could hardly have arrived from 
the south twice on the same day (cf. 1. 106). 

111. List or CASES AND FINEs. 

Mummy 69. Breadth 15:3 cm. About B.c. 250. 

This is a record, kept by some official connected with the judicial administra- 
tion, of cases which had come up for decision, with the addition in some cases of 
particulars concerning amounts due to or from the different parties. These 
sums are sometimes followed by the word zpafa, signifying that they were 
still to be paid ; and it is likely that the keeper of the account was the mpdxtwp 
who had to collect them. The items are arranged under the three villages of 
Takona, Tholthis, and Sephtha, all in the Oxyrhynchite nome. The document 
appears not to have extended beyond the two columns of which parts are 
preserved ; it belongs to the close of Philadelphus’ reign or the first few years 
of his successor. 

Colin: Col. ii. 

"Ev Takévac: Oars" 

Ta mpos Meddv@.ov Ta mpos Znvddorov Kai 

mept ths Bias emi 30 Kapveddnv. 

Anpntpiav ¢ (SvdBodor) (xptw- Apictovos porns KadX- 

BéXu0v), Spopov [On|papévov 6. 
5 Kal Bevolkpdrn) tc Anpirpiov (dpaxpal) v Kat Ta 
~ “AvSpopd(yot) 0. yivdpeva r (dBords) (AptwBE- 

Bevoxparynt Ta mpos Lov). 


ITrodepatov emt... 

oe ene 
10 Kov oljkovo(m ),| mpagale. 
TIonaévOnv ra mpos IIé- 
Aova (Spaxpal) B, mpaéa. 
ITérpwvt mpos Tovs 
Aourods peTayparpat 
15 mpos IIodvapxov Kat 
Saoipdvnv ex Tod apiOuod, 



35 Adkipos mpos Muproiv 

a PlOpe wars: OU ke | 

Anpyrpiov mepi..... 
évou (dpaxpal) s. 
Acovra& mepi tod | NexOe- 
40 viBios mpoBdrov (paxpy) a [ 

On the verso 

] - Swpoy dvov. 

‘AmodAwviot mpds ‘Amj[o\A- 
Adviov (Spaxpal) k, mpagat. 
Kovvdpou (Spaxpai) B, mpagat. 
20 Ta mpos Nikddaov kat 
‘Audiroxov oikovo(u ). 
Tx mpos Tivatoy (Spaxpal) x. 
“Are: els m[d\Auw Kal 
25 mept Oeopirov kai Me- 
AavOiov Pirwvos y (rpidBorov ?) (réraproy ?). 
[] OorlAjes]] 

11, 7 (or p?) of rodwra corr. from 2. 

‘At Takona: the case against Melanthius for violence to Demetria, 7 drachmae 23 
obols, and to Xenocrates 16 dr., to Andromachus 9 dr. ‘To Xenocrates in the case against 
Ptolemaeus ... to the oeconomus (?), to be collected. Polianthes in the case against 
Polon 2 dr., to be collected. To Patron against the rest, to be transferred to Polyarchus 
and Sosiphanes out of the number. To Apollonius against Apollonius 20 drachmae, to be 
collected. Connarus 2 drachmae, to be collected. In the case against Nicolaus and 
Amphilochus, to the oeconomus(?). At Sephtha: the case against Timaeus, 20 drachmae. 
For Apis to the city and concerning Theophilus and Melanthius son of Philon 3 dr. 33 ob. 
At Tholthis: the case against Zenodotus and Carneades. Ariston for the appearance of 
Callidromus son of Theramenes 4 dr. Demetrius 50 dr.and costs 30 dr. 14 ob. Docimus 
against Myrtous daughter of... Demetrius concerning the donkey of...6 dr. Leontas 
concerning the sheep of Nechthenibis, 1 dr.’ 

5. evo(kpdryt): the first name may be either in the nom., acc., gen., or dat. case, 
but probably these varieties do not all imply a corresponding distinction of meaning. 
Where the dative occurs, payment was presumably to be made to the person ; the acc. and 


gen. on the other hand might both be used of the persons who paid. The nom. is also 
more likely to represent the payer than the recipient. 

10. of kovo(u )|: cf. 1. 21. The meaning possibly is that the fine was to be paid to the 
oeconomus. In both cases there is a short space before oikovo(y ) 

13-6. The sense seems to be improved by connecting ll. 15-6 with the two preceding 
lines, notwithstanding the fact that zpdés projects somewhat to the left like the other lines 
which commence a new sentence. None of the other entries begins with mpds, and ek rod 
dpiOu0d is more intelligible if constructed with peraypaya than if 1. 15 begins a new entry, 
in which case a verb has to be supplied. 

21. Cf. note on 1. 10. 

24. [rbdAw: sc. ’O€upiyxor. 

27. The name ©adés, which is repeated at the top of the next column, is faint, and 
was probably partly erased. 

34. ywoueva: cf. 92. 20. The large amount of these ‘costs’ as compared with the 
first sum is remarkable ; the émdSéxara were perhaps included. 

41. This line, which is written in large letters across the fibres, looks like a regular 
endorsement, but its relation to the contents of the recto is not clear. An évos is mentioned 
in |. 38. 

112. Taxtinc-List. 

Mummy A. Fr, (a) 22-2 x 19, Fr. (6) 9:2 x 14:1 cm. About B. c. 260. 

Three fragments of a long taxing-list, perhaps written at the Aoyevriprov 
of Phebichis (cf. 106, introd.), recording money payments for various taxes at 
different villages of the Kwirys by individuals who are in most if not all cases 
the tax-payers, not the tax-collectors. Among the imposts are (1) a tax on 
pigeon-houses (1. 1, note); (2) payments for oil sold by the government (I. 2, 
note); (3) a new tax called dwédexaxadkia, which was apparently a charge of 
12 chalci per aroura on cleruchic and temple land (I. 8, note); (4) a tax upon 
green-stuffs (l. 9, note); (5) the beer-tax (ll. 11, 25, &c.; cf. 106, introd.) ; 
(6) the éxapodvpiov, a charge on certain kinds of land, with which is coupled (7) the 
tax on embankments, amounting to about } of it (I. 13, note); (8) the tax on 
sales (1. 22, note); (9) a tax of #,, which can be explained in several ways 
(1. 38, note); (10) a tax of 4, probably that levied upon the salting and milling 
industries (1. 45, note); (11) a new tax connected with carpet-weaving (I. 76, 
note); (12) a new tax called axis (1. 77), the nature of which is obscure; 
(13) a tax on gardens, perhaps the dmépuorpa (1. 92, note); (14) the bath-tax 
(1. 96; cf. 108. 7, note). The villages mentioned (in several instances for the 
first time) are generally in the nominative, but sometimes in the accusative 
or genitive; they include Kepxéons, PeSixis, Aocva, Poyis, Tepdn, PeBOov(EuBn ?) 
(1. 25, note), Xou8v@rpus, Modyis (1. 27, note), PerAeudxis, Oporrddis, Toevéyous 

112. ACCOUNTS 297 

(?; cf. 1. 43, note), Ilepxtgus, Oporoddis and ’Ayxupéyv mods. The papyrus 
probably belongs to the latter part of Philadelphus’ reign. In some places the 
ink of another document to which it had been gummed has come off, and 
occasionally there is a difficulty in distinguishing this from the writing of 112. 
On the verso are parts of another account, mentioning large sums of money 
but without indicating the nature of the payments. We omit Fr. (c), which 
contains only the beginnings of lines, and Col. i of Fr. (a), of which only a few 
figures from the ends of lines are preserved. 

Fr, (a). Col. ii. 

[.. .Jav[...] meplore|palvos 7. 
[Kelpxéons Oorop{raio|s €dai(ov) d, 

6 avTos adIKns é. 
PeBiyis Atoyévns [...... eter. 
5 [Aloovas ITerocipis...... ] A. 

Kepxéons ‘Hpakv¢[idn|s |... .| [(Swldexa)[x(adrxiav) 
Tod ITo\eudpyxov [t, xa(AKod)| «. 
Atoxrys (dwdexa)x(arklav) z[0d] “Hpodérou (rpidBodov), xa(Akod) (rpiéBodor). 
Swcirarpol[s xAjopav rod IIo- 
10 Aeu“apyxou 7. 
Podyis Apevveds (urnpas > (rerpdéBodor). 
Acovas 6 avros ks (TeTp@Bodor). 
PeBixis Aipiros Emapov(piov) 8 (rerpbBodov) (HputwBédwov), yo(pariKdv) 
(rpi®Borov) (7jp1wBErL0v). 
IIeponv OayopBis (SvoBdrovs) (réraprov), yw(uarikov) (rérapror), 
15 [. .|x@vots Ooropraiov a (Tpi@Borov), xw(uarixdy) (jpi@Bédtov) (7éTapTor), 
[ Oorop|raios kai Anpostparos a, xw(uarikov) (jplwBérLov) (réraprov), 

jv wl. - Ju 
isco jeof.]... . (rerp@Borov) (AptwBerLov), yo(uariKdy) (jut@Pérvov), 
[.... .|rptos .. (SvoBdrous) (réraprov), xo(uarixdy) (TérapTor), 

een e | Mud{orols (rerpéBorov) (jpiwBérLov), [xo(mariKdv) (7pwPBérL0r). 
2, lines lost. 
22 | 18 letters |s Boos 
Tapadvios 4s émplato mapa 
Eipnyns 6 (6BoXér). 


25 WeBOor(EuBn ?) Tlevoims Adyxis ¢u(rnpas) ta (rerp@Bodor). 

XoiBvaerpus ITevwis (u(rynpas) éy (SvoBodous). 

Mody Ilaots TeroBdorts €mra- 

povptov (dvoBdrous) (réraprov), Xx@pa(tiKov) (réraprov), 

Kal Teas (rptéBorov) (jpimBédwov) (réraprov), xo(uartikov) (pLw@PBEALOr). 
30 PeBixis Tedis (Swdexa)y(adkiav) tod A\nunrpiov (rerp@Bodov) (rérapror), 

xa(AKod) (rerpdBodor) (réTapTor). 

[ele Avis pos nce. = jev Ke (6Boddr), 

DVI ile wel Serene tema (eso \vouvBios (SvoBddous) (rérapTor), 

[ 18 letters Jovs (8wdexa)y(adkiav) Tob 

[ 20 ,, | La, xa(AKod) ta. 

16. tos Of dnpoorparos above the line. 

35 KAjpat BaciriKae mept Kouniy 
WPereudyu els tiv KaOykovoav 
avTa. avaphopav ews Tob ITalb\v(e?) Kn. 
PeBixis Aroyévns Ko Le (dBorér). 
Opor6Ois Odots érXalov if. 

40 PeBixis ‘Avtiyévns Ilépons strep 
TIocedwviov Swdexayadrkiav ov yewpyel KANpov 
TOV Tpos apytplov ty, [xa(AKod) (?) ty. 
Toevéyous @Ooropraios...., 
Onas errapovptov 6 (rpiéPBorov), [x@(marikor) . 

45 Motyw ’Epyis ‘Apvérns & |. . 
TIepxtgus Koddov0ns Ko’ [. 
Kal TETAPTNS B (rpiéBoror) { 
PeBixis Peyy@vots (Swdexa)y(adrklav) tod Kopo)- 
vos Kat Bevopdvrov €, ya(AxKod) €, 

50 evipis erapovpiov (rerp@eBorov) (jpmi@Béertov), yo(warixov) (jpi@Bériov). [ 
"Erpeds Elovyjou (rerpdéBodrov) (jpiwBérXov), xo(matixoy) [(rpL@BédL0r). 


112. ACCOUNTS 299 

Acavas Atoyévns 75 mapa mi.... 

Aprrarvios (Swdexa)x(aAkiav) to6 Kdéwvos y, [xa(AKod) y. 
PeBixis IleroBdors KrAHpov tldv 

mpos apyvpiov Tov Piryoiov |... 

OpobOis .[.] . oops fe... 

Podyxis ITdis cis rHv Atovivatov éy-? 

yonv Ko [ 

ITerocipis 5 ee 

HeBixis Srorojris Yevl..... 
Emapovpiov gowikov  . | 

ArodrGri0s xo(uatikov) Tod af 
Sroronris (Swdexa)y(adrkiav) T5..... 
kAjpou | 


Kot 700... . { 

*“Qpos Mibows 77. { 

> [leer] 
41, dwdexayadkiay above the line. 60. arorontis above merooupis erased. 

Fr. (0). Col. i. 

Parts of four lines. 
cece is Ayaririros . 
[Ayk|ypav méA\s “Qpos édai(ov) pé. 

[. .|KAns Bapns Kd’ v, 
Q ~ 

kal tamdupavTov €; 

kal pans é, 
‘ 1 ek J oh SN 

kat & 6 avros i 

HcBixis Oavas Ga . [.\axovrov 

els Pivrdnv B. 
Kepkéon|s S|répavos SYardkov 
[.|[-lpt[. . . ArrjoArdodépou «kd, 
MclPiaile'= = «ar@\roKoy. — Ko. 


Ple\Bixis Iirodepjatos (Swdexa)x(adkiav) Tob Oec- 
tal Btae & eaean mates ] a (6Boddy) (hutwBErtov), xa(AKod) a (dBodSv) (7)pLwBEL0r). 

Gol. it. 

XoiBy[_@r pts KAN Pov 

Tay mplos apyvplov 

O po.od| Os 

Srorojrios (Swdexa)y(adkiav) lep|as yas? 
90 ToD “Appovos [., Xa(AKod) . 

HeBixis ‘AmodAd@v[tos .. . . « 

7) mapa WPeyydvolis exrns ? 

Tod avTod mapade icov mpé- 

tepov dvtos Aipirov O (mevT@Bodor) | 
95 kal aj. .|raAou | 

Baralveiov . .jos Dirwvos [ 


... @ pigeon-house 8 dr. At Kerkeses, Thotortaeus for oil 30 dr., the same for 
salt-tax 60 dr. At Phebichis, Diogenes for...16 dr. At Assua, Petosiris for... 30 dr. 
At Kerkeses, Heraclides for the (12 chalci-tax ?) on Polemarchus’ holding 10 (?) dr., 10 (?) 
dr. of copper. Diocles for the 12 chalci-tax on Herodotus’ holding 3 obols, 3 obols of 
copper; Sosipater for the green-stuffs (?) of Polemarchus’ holding 8 dr. At Psuchis, 
Amenneus for beer-tax 6 dr. 4 ob. At Assua, the same (Amenneus) 26 dr. 4 ob. At 
Phebichis, Diphilus for Jand-tax 4 dr. 44 ob., for embankments-tax 3% ob. At Peroé, 
Thagombes 21 ob., for embankments-tax 4 ob.; ...chonsis son of Thotortaeus 1 dr. 
3 ob., for embankments-tax 4 ob.; Thotortaeus and Demostratus 1 dr., for embankments- 
tax 3 ob.; ... 44 ob., for embankments-tax 3 ob.; ... trius ... 24 ob., for embankments- 
tax 1 ob.; ... son of Miusis 43 ob., for embankments-tax 4 ob, ...on the cow of Tamanis 
which he bought from Eirene 4 dr.1 ob. At Psebthonembe (?), Penoupis son of (?) Aunchis 
for beer-tax 11 dr. 4 ob. At Choibnotmis, Petotis for beer-tax 63 dr. 2 ob. At Mouchis 
Pasis son of (?) Tetobastis for land-tax 21 ob., for embankments-tax 4 ob., and Teos 3% ob., 
for embankments-tax 3 ob. At Phebichis, Teos for the 12 chalci-tax upon the holding of 
Demetrius 41 ob., 42 ob. of copper. At... is, Horus... 27 dr. 1 ob.; ... son of 
...nubis 20b, ... forthe 12 chalci-tax on the holding of .. . 11 dr., 11 dr. of copper. 

the royal holding near the village of Pselemachis for the instalment due from him up to 
Pauni(?) 28 dr. At Phebichis, Diogenes for the tax of p44, 15 dr. 1 ob. At Thmoitothis, 
Thasis for oil 12 dr. At Phebichis, Antigenes, Persian, on behalf of Posidonius for the 12 
chalci-tax upon the holding which he cultivates among those which are valued in silver 

Pier ACCOUNTS 301 

13 dr., 13 dr. of copper. At Toénegous (?), Thotortaeus...; Theos for land-tax 4 dr. 3 ob., 
for embankments-tax... At Mouchis, Emges(?) son of (?) Haruotes for the tax of 4... 
At Perchuphis, Kollouthes for the tax of 4,., and for the tax of $ 2 dr.3 0b. At Phebichis, 
Psenchonsis for the 12 chalci-tax upon the holdings of Comon and Xenophantus 5 dr., 
5 dr. of copper; Senuris for land-tax 44 ob., for embankments-tax 4 ob. ; Etpheus son of 
Isigeiis (?) 44 ob., for embankments-tax 4 ob. At Assua, Diogenes the sum due from... 
son of (?) Harpotnis for the 12 chalci-tax upon the holding of Cleon 3 dr., 3 dr. of copper. 
At Phebichis, Petobastis for the (12 chalci-tax upon) holdings valued in silver, upon the 

holding of Philesius... At Thmoiouthis... At Psuchis, Pais for surety of Dionysius on 
account of the tax of 3,...; Petosiris for the tax of }... At Phebichis, Stotoétis son of 
Sen ... for land-tax (?) upon palms . .; Apollonius for embankments-tax upon. . .; 

Stotoétis for the 12 chalci-tax upon the holding of ...; Horus son of Miusis.. .’ 

Fr. (4). *... son of Agatitis 5 dr. At Ancyronpolis, Horus for oil 160 dr. At(?).. cle 
Phames for the tax of #4, 50 dr., and for carpet-weavers 5 dr., and for lentil-cake 4 dr., and 
the same for the tax of $10 dr. At Phebichis, Thanos son of Pha. . akoutes to the credit 
of Psintaés 2 dr. At Kerkeses, Stephanus son of Satokus for ...of Apollodorus 24 dr.; .. 
son of Satokus 24 dr. At Phebichis, Ptolemaeus for the 12 chalci-tax upon the holding of 
The... 1 dr. 14 ob., 1dr. r40b. of copper... At.Choibnotmis,...upon holdings valued 
in silver... At Thmoiouthis. .. of Stotoétis for the 12 chalci-tax on the sacred land of 
Ammon... At Phebichis, Apollonius... the sum due from Psenchonsis on account of 
the sixth (?) upon his garden which formerly belonged to Diphilus 9 dr. 5 ob., and...; for 
bath-tax ... son of Philon...’ 

I. meptote|p vos: a tpitn Tepiorepwvar, i.e. a tax of 4 on the profits of pigeon-houses, 
is known in Ptolemaic times from Wilcken, Os/. II. no. 1228 (cf. I. p. 279), P. Petrie 
III. 119 recto, and P. Tebt. 84. 9 (cf. note ad /oc.); but the impost here may be different. 
The preceding words may be (6) aijrés|; cf. 1. 3. 

2. edai(ov): cf. Il. 39, 74, and 118, 12-4. Thotortaeus was probably an €Aatoxarnos ; 
cf. Rev. Laws xlviii. 3-12. 

3. dduxjs: cf. P. Petrie III. pp. 273-4 and Wilcken, Os/. I. pp. 141-4. That the salt 
industry was a government monopoly is practically certain, but the principles upon which it 
was managed are not clear. 

6. Near the end of the line is an « somewhat above the level of the other letters, 
probably part of the abbreviation for dSadexayadkiay; cf. the next note. With rod before 
TloAenxdpxov in |, 7, as in]. 9, supply kAnpou; cf. 1. 41 and notes on 52. 26 and 117. 8. 

8. (Swdexa)x(adxiav): this new word, which usually in 112 is abbreviated in the form «8 
over x, is written out in 1. 41. The name indicates a tax of 12 chalci (14 obols) upon, 
probably, the aroura; and it generally occurs in connexion with cleruchic land, being paid 
by the yewpyot on behalf of the cleruchs (cf. Il. 30, 33, 41, &c.), but in one case (I. 89) the 
land in question is fepa. Payment is made in copper, except perhaps in ll. 42 and 55 
(cf. 1. 87), where the xAjpou are said to be ray mpos dpyipiov, sc. diotkoupevwy Or Some such word 
(cf. e.g. P. Tebt. 60. 41). A peculiarity of the entries concerning this tax is the fact that 
the amount is stated twice, xa(Axov) being prefixed in the second instance. If the unit of 
taxation was the aroura, as would be expected, this impost of 14 obols, which = about 
# artaba of wheat (cf. 84 (a). 8-9, note), may well correspond to the imposts ranging 
from 4 artaba to 1 artaba upon cleruchic and sacred land found in the Tebtunis papyri 
of the next century; cf. P. Tebt. I. pp. 430-1. Whether pos apyvpuor in Il. 42 and 55 is 
contrasted with payments in copper or with payments in kind is not clear. 

g. For [xA\opar cf. the Aoyeta xAwpSy in 61, 2, and the payments for xAepéy in 119. 17 
and for xA@pav eis omeppa in 117. 4. 


13. érapov(pov): this is the first occasion on which the name of this impost upon the 
aroura of, probably, palm-, vine-, and fruit-bearing land (cf. 1. 61 éxap. gowixov) has been 
found in the third century B. c.; but cf. P. Petrie III. 70 (a). 1 where the tax of 8 drachmae 
per aroura on, apparently, vine-land may well be the émapovpiov. In the second century B.c. 
it is mentioned in several ostraca (Wilcken, Os¢. I. p. 193) and in P. Tebt. 209, and 
frequently in the Roman period, payments being, as here, uniformly in money. In 112 
the yoparixdy or tax on embankments is regularly associated with the érapovpwy, and in the 
present instance is about 3 of it. In 1. 15 the xoparikdy is only 345 of the emapovpiov, but in 
the other cases (ll. 14, 16-9, 28-9, 50) the proportion of the amounts paid for the two 
taxes is nearly the same asin 1.13. Since the xparixdy at this period was often 1 obol 
per aroura (P. Petrie III. 108. 2, &c., and p. 273), the emapovpioy in 112 was very likely 
about 8 obols per aroura. 

14-9. The first of the two payments in each of these entries refers to the éemapovpiov ; 
cf. the preceding note. 

19. Perhaps [*@pos| Mwows; cf. 1. 67. For the supplement of the final lacuna 

22. Perhaps rédo|s Bods; cf. P. Fay. 62. 3 réAos Bods ... fs éoynra. The impost in 
question is the éykv«dov of 5 per cent., on which cf. 70 (a), introd. The value of this cow 
was therefore 83 dr. 2 ob. 

25. VeBOor(eu8y): cf. 88.7 and p. 8. The names of the villages are, however, not 
abbreviated elsewhere in this papyrus; and it is quite possible that ¥e8@ovrevodms should be 
read, especially as this combination would avoid the difficulty with regard to Adyyis, which 
if Ievodms is the tax-payer has to be treated as a genitive, i.e. for Avyywos. The fathers’ 
names of the tax-payers are sometimes found in 112, e.g. in |. 81; but it is not very 
satisfactory to suppose the omission of o in the termination -sos in a papyrus so early and 
in other respects so well written as 112. A precisely similar difficulty arises in ll. 27 and 
45, and on the whole it seems best to suppose that in all these cases two nominatives are 
found together, the second being a mistake for the genitive or xai being omitted. 

24. Movyw: cf. p. 8, and for the accusative 1. 14 Hepény. But if Modyw Macs be two 
words TeroSdoris must be corrected (cf. 1. 25, note), and perhaps the name of the village was 
Movywrdors ; cf. the form Movyw6an() on p. 8, and 1. 45, note. 

29. The 33 obols are for émapovpioy ; cf. 1, 27 and note on |. 13. 

30. For the supplement (S@dexa)y(adxéav) cf. 1. 8, note. 

35. KAnpat Baowixar: cf. 52. 26, note. What this payment of 28 dr. was for does not 

37. There is hardly room for Ua|yo|v, unless ayo was very cramped. 

38. «5: several imposts called = are known in the Ptolemaic period; cf. 80. 4, x6 
on goods exported from the Heracleopolite to the Arsinoite nome, 95. 7 reraprovekoorn (szc) 
retparddav, P. Petrie I. 25 (2). 2 terpaxaecxoor mupoy, 115 introd. xd’ €piwy, and the terpa- 
kaveckoor paid in kind by Bacwacxot yewpyot at Kerkeosiris (P. Tebt. I. 93, introd.). Which 
of these taxes is meant here is uncertain. 

41-2. Cf. note on 1. 8. 

43. Toevéyous seems to be a village rather than a personal name. 

45. Modxyw’Epyns: cf. ll. 25 and 247, notes. If ’Evyjs is a proper name ‘Apverns must 
be altered to ‘Apusrov or kai ‘Apvdrns ; but perhaps Movxivevyns should be read. 

8: cf. 47 and rerdpry as the heading of a taxing-list in P. Petrie III. 117 (A). ii. 1, where 
it means the rerdpty rapixnpav and ovroraay. That is very likely to be the impost meant in 
112, though a rerdptn ddcéoy is also known, on which cf. Wilcken, Os¢. I. pp. 137-41, and 
P. Tebt. I. pp. 49-50. For the rerdpry rapiynpav and otromady cf. P. Fay. 15. 3 (where 1. ri 
8’ (so Wilcken) ray cevrorody Kai (rar| raptxnpev), and P. Petrie III. introd., p. 8 and 58 (a). 2. 

113. ACCOUNTS 303 

It seems to have been a tax of 1 0n the profits of the salting and milling (or perhaps 
baking) industries. 

50. Sevdpis may be a village-name, in which case Yeyx@vors must be supplied from 1. 48. 

51. Eiovyjov: though the y may well be superfluous (cf. 27. 53, note), this word 
would seem to be the name of the father of ’Ergets rather than of a place (sc. "Iovetov ; cf. 

Be ro mapa: Cf. ]. g2 and 109. 9g. 

54. dwdexayadxiav is probably to be supplied before xAnpey from |. 53; cf. ll. 41-2 and 
1, 8, note. 

57- For éy|yiny cf. the payments for Seyyinots in 114-5. 

61. Cf. note on 1]. 13. The xopuarixdy was in the present case paid by a different person 

1. 62). 
- [ Ayklupav m/dAlus : cf. pp. 9-10. 

75. |. -|kAns, if not a place-name, affords another example of two nominatives together ; 
cf. 1. 25, note. 

76. tamdupavray: the name of this impost ‘for carpet-weavers’ is new. Wilcken (Os¢. 
I. p. 177) resolves the abbreviation dax(_), which occurs in one of his ostraca as the name 
of a tax, as dar(sdvpor), i.e. ramdvpov, and regards it as a branch of the yepwrdéov or tax 
on trades; but this explanation of dam( ) is not very likely. Whether raméupavrav 
here means merely a tax on that trade, or is connected with the d@ovmpad monopoly (on 
which cf. 67, introd., and Wilcken, Os¢. I. pp. 266-9) is uncertain. 

77. pays: this too is a new name of a tax; but cf. éroviay paxeyov as the description 
of an impost in P. Par. 67. 16. gaxépov is also to be read above adaveiwy in P. Petrie 
III. 37 (4). verso 6, but seems to have been intentionally rubbed out. The nature of this 
impost connected with lentil cake is quite obscure. 

80. Ywrany seems to be a man rather than a place. 

86-7. Cf. ll. 41-2 and note on ]. 13. 

89-90. Cf. 1. 8, note. 

92. For the supplement ékrys (i.e. the dmopoipa) cf. 109. 10. But the emapovpuoy may 
be meant; cf. |. 13, note. 

93- For rod aitod mapade\icov meaning ‘his garden’ instead of ‘the same garden’ cf. 
e.g. P. Petrie III. 117 (g). 38 and 4o. 


Mummy 46. 14°7 X25 cm. About B.c. 260. 

Two incomplete columns of an official account of sums paid or owing, 
resembling P. Petrie III. 93, verso. Judging by the miscellaneous character 
of the entries, which refer amongst other things to deficiencies in connexion with 
the revenues from the oil and beer industries (ll. 12-5), and a present from the 
State to distressed cultivators (ll. 18-20), it is probable that the writer was 
connected with a royal bank or Aoyevrijpioy (cf. 106, introd.), The handwriting 
is a small, very flowing cursive of a distinctly early type, and the papyrus is 


certainly not later than the end of Philadelphus’ reign. We omit the second 
column which is much obliterated. 

PICA Biol Geren terns, Shcer-8 

os airovpevois........ ¥-(?) 

kat év Adeupleai........-. 
5 Kal TO émvypagey Tolis....]... | 
Tols TO (OTos pr eldAn{ poor 

€v Tht TOV Kopav [...... | xaAkod) qa (npi@Bértor). 
AoyeuTHL THL Tap[a..... ire 

10 Borpot rat gudrakizine Kal 2] 
avaxopnoavte <utr[pas| xa(AKod) AO (7ptwPEdLov) (TérapTov), 
Kal €XalKhs xa(Akod) p&¢ (6Bodos) (7)utmBErt07). 
Kal €v Tois avTiAéyovoly pi) €iAn- 
gpévat €alov xa(AKod) ¢. 
15 ev Totont IIdoiros oyevThe 
at pnbev vrdpxe E> (tpi@Borov) (rérapTor). 
kal To dobev rots acbevotowy 
TOY yewpyav els Ta Epya TaV 

KTNPLATOV apy(upiov) k. 

2. s of os above the line. 5. ene of emvypapev above ava erased. 6. o of ros 
corr. from a. 

8-19. ‘Item, owed by Pasis son of ... , tax-collector, who... Botrus the guard and 
disappeared, for the beer-tax 34 dr. 4 ob. in copper, and for the oil-tax 167 dr. 13 ob. in 
copper. Item, owed by the persons who deny that they have received it, for oil 6 dr. in 
copper. Owed by Totoés son of Pasis, tax-collector, who has no property, 66 dr. 34 ob. 
Item, given to the distressed cultivators for operations in their vineyards, 20 dr. in silver.’ 

5. The persons meant are probably the beer-sellers, though ¢vrommAas is too long ; cf. 
ll. 13-4 which seem to refer to the eAaor@dar. 

7. If cpa is right a word meaning ‘list’ or ‘distribution’ would be expected after it ; 
but the initial « is doubtful, and » or y might be read. 

g. Perhaps rapalordy|rr. It is not clear whether dvaywpyoavte refers to Hdorre or to 
II-2. avis is to be supplied with both ¢urmpas and édakjs. The sum owed by Pasis 
under the latter heading probably refers to the payments by eAawoxdamndoe to the government 

114. ACCOUNTS 305 

officials for oil supplied ; cf. Rev. Laws xlviii. 3-12 and the next note. The ¢urnpa probably 
means the tax levied on the beer-manufacturers ; cf. 106, introd. 

13-4. Tois dyTiAéyovor py eiAnpévae is ambiguous. If the object to be supplied for 
eiAnpeva is the 6 drachmae, the avtiAéyorres are Aoyevrai like Maors in |]. 8. But on the 
analogy of 1. 6 the object of «iAnpevae is more likely to be ¢Aaov, in which case the 
éAaoxdandot are most probably meant; cf. the preceding note. 

19. For xrja in the sense of a ‘vineyard’ cf. P. Petrie III. 28 (e). 4, 67 (2). 10, &c. 
The abbreviation of dpyvpiov forms a symbol resembling that for dpra8y (which is of course 
nothing but a combination of apr), as in P. Petrie IIT. 114. 9. 

114. OrrictaL ACCOUNT. 

Mummy 25. 23:5 X 19-8cm. B.C. 244 (243). 

An account of payments made at Cynopolis by Apollonius and Onnophris, 
contractors for the mAvvos kal or{Bos (or -ov; the gender is in both cases doubtful), 
in the 3rd year of a king who is probably Euergetes. The precise meaning of 
these two words, upon which the interpretation of the papyrus turns, is not easy 
to determine. zAvvos occurs in two Ptolemaic ostraca published by Wilcken, 
Ost. II. 329 (third century B.C.) and 1497 (second century B. C.), which are receipts 
for 60 drachmae and 500 drachmae for vitpixjs mAvvov, and also on the recto 
of 116 in proximity to an account concerning virpov. There was therefore a close 
connexion between virpov and mAvvos, and the question arises whether mAvvos and 
otiBos could signify some preparation of virpov. The production of natron was 
most probably a government monopoly, and the market may have been supplied 
through contractors, in the same way as in the case of oil. But there is no other 
trace of any such sense for zAvvos or oriBos. mAvvos should mean either a place for 
washing or the articles washed ; cf. Suid. mAvvds dfutdvws 76 dyyeiov atrd, mapogutdves 
d€ TO TAvVopevov. It is in the latter sense that Wilcken understands the word 
in the combination vitpixijs tAvvov (Osz. I. p. 264). otiBos ordinarily means ‘ path’ 
or ‘footstep,’ but in this context is obviously to be connected with the sense of 
‘washing,’ which the same root has in ore(Bew and oreSeds. On the whole we 
are inclined to think that Apollonius and Onnophris were contractors for washing 
and fulling carried out in a place or places under State control, though whether 
the words zAvvos and otiBos have themselves a local signification—which is not 
really incompatible with the ostraca—or are equivalent to ra mAvydpeva kal 
ore.Bopueva, has still to be determined. Another possible alternative would be 
to suppose that zAvvos and oriBos are loosely used, and that the subject of the 
contract was not the industry itself but the tax upon it. The tax upon the 
fuller’s trade (yak) is well known in the Roman period, but there is as yet 



no evidence concerning it in Ptolemaic times. Between the several alternative 
explanations a decision is hardly attainable without further evidence. The 
document is written in a large calligraphic hand. The order of the months in 
which the instalments are paid gives rise to a difficult chronological problem ; cf. 
note on ll. 3-5. 

(IIap& ‘Aro\\d\@viov kai ‘Ovy dppews 
[ray e€\ednpdtay |rov mdvvov 
[kali oriBov els 7d y (ros) (Spaxpov) “B.. |. 
[eo rv b&  advadopa amd Mexeip 
5 [ews Paddie pynvav 0 (Spaxpat) “Big (dvdBoror) (tpr@BérL0r). 
[ells Todro mémTwxey emi TO ev Ku(vav) mo(ret) 
[A loyeuTHpLov 
(M\exeip mAdvouv ‘(Spaxpat) p pd, 
(0 TiPou rg, 
10 [yi |\verau (Spaxpat) pra. 

/Papevad| mdrdvvov 

'oriBou | 
Col. ii. 
Owdr oA, 
Kal amd dleyyvicews (Spaxpat) «, 
Lae oy. 
mtvoU poe, 
orTiBou fete 
yiveTal opy. 
Pawde mdvvou pvc, 
20 oTiBou [é's, 
wo oA B. 
yiverau Awgn, 
Noval) pO (dvéBoror) (jprwPBér.0r). 
6. tov of rouro inserted above the line. 13. tT Of Owur corr. from @. 


‘From Apollonius and Onnophris, the contractors for the washing and fulling (?) in 
the third year at 2'...] drachmae. The instalment for the 9 months from Mecheir to 

115. ACCOUNTS 307 

Phaophi is 2017 drachmae 24 obols: to meet this there has been paid into the collecting- 
office at Cynopolis, in Mecheir for washing 144 dr., for fulling 37 dr., total 181 dr.... 
Thoth 238 dr., and as surety-money 5 dr., total 243 dr. For washing 177 dr., for fulling 
66 dr., making 243 dr. Phaophi for washing 156 dr., for fulling 66 dr., making 232 dr. 
Total 1898 dr.; remainder 119 dr. 24 ob.’ 

3-5. If the amounts due each month were equal, the monthly instalment would amount 
to 224 dr. +7 ob., and the total to 2689 dr. 54 ob.; but those figures cannot be read in 
1, 3. The instalments may therefore be assumed to have differed ; cf. 116. 3-4. That the 
series begins with Mecheir is worth noting in connexion with 115. 5 and 116. 3; cf. notes 
ad loc. tis impossible to be certain in the present case whether the fourth quarter of the 
year was reckoned as preceding Mecheir or following after Phaophi. But whether Athur 
or, as is more likely, Mecheir is here the beginning of the financial year, this does not 
coincide with the ordinary revenue year starting in Thoth, in spite of the fact that in 1. 3 
the two taxes are stated to be farmed ‘for the 3rd year’ of a king. We defer to App. ii. 
p- 361 a discussion of the possible solutions of this complicated problem. 

ae [A loyeurnprov : cf. 106, introd. 

12. The lower half of the column which contained details for the five months from 
Pharmouthi to Mesore is lost. 

14. The meaning of this item is that the payments being in arrear one of the sureties 
for the contractors had to make up the deficiency. At the end of the nine months there was 
still a considerable sum owing. Similar entries occur in 115. 15 and 34. 

16-7. These are the details for Thoth, the 5 dr. awd dceyyunoews being included in one 
of the items; the total given in ]. 15 is repeated in 1. 18. 

115. AccounT or TAXrEs on SACRIFICES AND WOOL. 

Mummy 84. Fr. (a) 24:7 X 11 cm. About B.c. 250. 

Some fragmentary taxing accounts, of which the two columns given below 
are in a fair state of preservation. ‘The first of these relates to the péoywy dexarn, 
or 10 per cent. duty upon sacrificial calves, which is here first met with in the 
Ptolemaic period. The fragment published in P. Petrie II. p. 37, from which 
Wilcken (Ost. I. p. 377) infers the existence in the third century B.C. of a tax 
on sacrifices, is shown by the republication in P. Petrie III. 112 (a2) not to 
justify that conclusion. The tax is also called a dexdry in P. Tebt. II. 307 and 
605-7, of about the year A.D. 200, where the amount is 20 drachmae, paid in 
two cases at least by priests. The impost was probably levied by the State 
upon the profits which the priests derived upon the sacrifices offered by private 
persons ; cf. Wilcken, Os¢. I. pp. 384-5. 

The subject of the next column is a tax of 5 per cent. on wool, apparently 
a property-tax, of which the present is the first mention. A tax of #3, on 
wool («’d’ épiwv) is found in another (unpublished) Hibeh papyrus ; but whether 


308 HEB PAPYV ich 

that represents the same impost at a lower rate or is something distinct, e.g. 
an export duty (cf. 80), is not clear. Concerning the wool-tax in Roman times 
information is even scantier, though P. Cairo 10449 (Wilcken, Archiv, I. p. 552); 
in which €pinpa occurs, proves that it continued to exist. 

Both accounts are arranged on the same plan. At the head of the column 
are the names of the tax and the tax-farmers, which are followed by estimates 
of the amounts expected in different months and statements of the sums actually 
paid; cf. 116. 

The papyrus belongs to about the middle of the third century, but no date 
occurs. Col. iii is written over some earlier writing which has been washed out. 


pocxov Oexatys T....... | Kal 
Nixdévep [ 'v 

emlBadrAEL TOL plnvl... | 

els Toto ypddovat ye (vecOat | 

Meyxip (rptéBodov), 

Papevad (rpr@Borov) (jpiwBeXov), 
PappodOc ovbér, 

ITaxovs (Spaxpas) Ed [(dvoBdAovs), 

Va (Spaxpai) ge (dvdBoro) (1)pr@B€AL0r). 

10 mémta@Kke Meyip ovév, 


Papevad (Spaxpiy) a (piwmBérL0r), 
Pappod 6! ovder, 
Tlaxavs (Spaxpatl) vn (revT@Boror) | 
Tain ad (Spay pov) E> (Spaxpuat) y (tpt@Boror) (7 uiwBeAtLor) (TETAp- 
Tov ?), {Ao(tTat)| (Spay pat) EB (dvéBoro) (rérapTor). 
15 Kal Oveyytnors tr App....... ) (pax pat) KE, 
Kal mpookaTaoTHo ovot ....|. pov (dpaxpas) e, 

/ (ipaxpai) d 

TTatve yelverat 

el. i] 

le ef e T 

115. ACCOUNTS 309 

Col. iti. 

20 elkooTHs epeoy Tpj.|y . | Kal 
"Ivapods “Appoviov { 
emiBarrAer THe (TeTp)NM(Epar) |.]. » [ 
eis O& TodTo ypdpovar yeive bat 
Mexip (Spaxpas ?) Ay (Tpt@Borov ?), 

25 Papevad (Spaxpas 2) TAB (6Bordv) (réTapror ?), 
Pappobvor [(Spaxpas) . .Ja (TpidBorov) (hpimPBéertL0r), 
ITax{ avs] [(Spaxpas .jva (dBordv ?) (jputwBér1ov) (TérapTor ?), 

méntwokev M exip 

30 Plape|vad 
Pappodb [ 

TIaxavs  (dpaxpat ?) | 
2 ee (Spaxpat) pra | 
[kal] dveyyvnots v{ 76 
35 Kal vmep ‘Ivapwiz\os 

36 Ilatu yeitvierau 

ead) UL «| 

‘For the tenth upon calves, I... and Nicanor... The instalment due for the 
month is...; for this they write that there is (or was?) paid, in Mecheir 3 obols, in 
Phamenoth 33 ob.,in Pharmouthi nothing, in Pachon 64 dr. 2 ob., total 65 dr. 24 ob. 
Receipts: in Mecheir nothing, in Phamenoth 1 dr. 4 ob., in Pharmouthi nothing, in Pachon 
58 dr. 5 ob., in Pauni, out of 66 dr., 3 dr. 33 ob., leaving 62 dr. 24 ob. Also as surety- 
money from Arm... 25 dr., and they will in addition provide ...5 dr., total 30 dr. In 
Pauniis paid... 

‘ The twentieth on wool, Tr... and Inaroiis son of Ammonius. The instalment due 
every four days is...; for this they write that there is (?) paid, in Mecheir 33 dr. 3 ob., in 
Phamenoth 332 dr. 14 ob., in Pharmouthi |. .|1 dr. 34 ob., in Pachon |.|51 dr. 13 ob., total 

Receipts: in Mecheir, &c.’ 

1-2. The ends of these two lines and of Il. 14-6 are upon the piece of papyrus 


containing Col. iii, and are combined with Col. ii on the basis of the arithmetic in Il. 15-7 ; 
but there is nothing to determine the precise length of the lacunae. The names here and 
in ll. 20-1 are those of the tax-farmers. 

3. Cf. 1. 22, where rie (rerp)nu(épor) takes the place of ra pnvi(?). The reading there 
is not very certain, and the letters might be read py, i.e. (rerpa)un(ver); but the former 
alternative is confirmed by the occurrence of the same abbreviation in the remains of the 
first column, and there the last letter is plainly » (or 7), not 7. Apparently ll. 3 and 22 give 
purely hypothetical estimates, gained by a simple process of arithmetical division, of the 
amount falling due within the period named; cf. 116. 5, where after a statement of amounts 
payable in the two halves of the year the papyrus proceeds det ov avroy ragacOa rhs 
(rerp)nu(épov)... The estimates which follow in Il. 4-9 and 23-8, on the other hand, 
though also hypothetical, have obviously a closer relation to facts, and may be conjectured 
to be the amounts paid in the corresponding periods of the preceding year. This point 
would be clearer if the word after ypdpova: in Il. 4 and 23 were definitely ascertainable. An 
infinitive is expected, and on the whole yeiverOa. or yevérOar seem most suitable ; if the latter 
were adopted the reference to a previous occasion would be more necessary. 

s. Mexip: this month perhaps began the financial year; cf. notes on 114. 3-5 and 
116. 3-4, and pp. 360-1. 

14. This mention of Pauni, which month does not occur in the list of estimates in 
ll. 5-8 and apparently belongs to the next group of entries (I. 18), is curious. Perhaps these 
3 dr. 33 obols paid in Pauni were reckoned with the account of Mecheir—Pachon in order 
to diminish the difference between 65 dr. 24 obols, the total of the estimate (1. 9), and 59 dr. 
53 (or 5) ob., the sum of the actual receipts in Il. 10-3. A somewhat similar difficulty 
arises in the corresponding passage of the other account at 1. 33, where there is an 
additional entry of an obscure character after the sums relating to the 4 months; but HMavue 
cannot be read there. 

Some of the figures in 1. 14 are by no means certain. The first number is probably 
f> or £¢; and the question arises whether the figures at the end of the line represent the 
difference between these 66 or 67 drachmae and the 3 dr. 33 ob. actually paid, or the sum 
of the 3 dr. 3% ob. and the preceding items in ll. 10-3. We have been led to adopt the 
former supposition owing to the circumstance that the obols and fractions in 1. 14 add up 
to a drachma, as apparently they should do if do(urat) is supplied in the lacuna, whereas the 
sums in ll. r1o—3, which amount to at least 59 dr. 54 obols, added to 3 dr. 32 ob. make 63 dr. 
31 ob., and the number at the end of |. 14 is not 34 but 24 obols. But the blurred vestiges 
at the end of the line do not suggest &y or &8. 

15. Perhaps ’Applavmos (?), a name which occurs in the first column. For deyyinots cf. 
114. 14, note. The size of the lacunae in the middle of Il. 15-6 is uncertain; cf. note on 
ll. 1-2. 

16. The vestige of the letter before pev would suit a or o. 

22 sqq. Cf. note on 1. 3. 

33. The supposed « might be p and the preceding letter « or 7. Neither yetverac nor 
Nourd can be read; cf. 1. 14, note. 

37. There are traces of five lines between this and ]. 36, but they apparently all belong 
to the erased document; cf. introd. 




Mummy 12. 16-8 x 16-8 cm. About B.c. 245. 

Part of an account dealing with the tax of a third upon baths, for the 
collection of which at Busiris (the modern Abusir) the large sum of 1320 
drachmae was paid by Aristander. This impost, which is to be distinguished 
from the ordinary tax Badavelwy, was apparently a percentage of 4 levied upon 
the profits of privately owned baths ; cf. note on 108. 7. An estimate is first 
given (cf. 115) of the amounts (which are not equal) accredited to the two halves 
of the year, and of the sum falling due every four days; and an account of the 
actual payments follows. It is remarkable that the half years commenced with 
Mecheir and Mesore ; cf. note on 1. 3. 

The column printed is preceded by the ends of lines from another 
column, which contained a similar account relating probably to a different tax ; 
cf. 115. These two columns are written on the verso of the papyrus. On the 
recto are two more columns of official accounts, unfortunately both fragmentary, 
written in a different hand and referring to virpoy and zAvvos (cf. 114). Col. i 
shows that virpov was priced at 4 drachmae the talent, e.g. Il. 10-1 ] virpou 
(rddavta) pryy' av(a) 5 (Spaxpal) pry (SvdBorou), | virpov] (rdAavra) ’AtAyy’ av(a) 6 (Spax- 
pal) “ErAy (Svdfodo). In P. Tebt. I. 120 3 minae of virpov are valued at go copper 
drachmae, which on a ratio of silver to copper of 1 : 450 exactly corresponds 
with the price here. The three preceding lines contain the entry virpov ?] (rdAavra) 
v, eloddera Tijs | [14 letters ?] ek rob émBdddovtos | [adrois (?) kara 70 dul ypaypa av(a) x. 
Col. ii, in which wAvvov [ occurs, mentions dveyydnors [ (cf. 114. 14,115.15), and rau 
Tapa Tov oixovomov [éyAaBovrt ... | eyyvous eis Extiow (cf. 94-5). 

The papyrus may belong to the latter part of the reign of Philadelphus 
or the earlier years of Euergetes; it was the only Greek document from 
Mummy 12. 


Baraveiov y 
Bovceipews ‘Apicravédpos OiBpavos  (Spaypal) ’Az|k. 
Otaipecis Mexip Ews ’Emeip dv(a) qa (rerpéBorov) (Spaxpal) gv, 
Meoopi, ews Tb: adv(%) pen (SvoBddovs) (Spaxpal) wo, mA(fpes ?) [ 
5 det ovv avtov rdgacbar rhs (reTp)nu(Epov) uly (TeTpe@Bodor). 



Meyip B B (retp@Bodov) (réraprov), ¥ B (rerpéBorov), n ¢ (dvdBodor), 
6 (dvdBoror) (réraprov), ta B (mevTdéBodov ?) [(qppewBerLor), 
18 B (rpidBoror), ts 8, tn g (SvdBodAol), Kz KE; J. §B (wevT7@Bodor). 
Papi vad : 
s a (dBords) (jptwBéeriov), ¢ 6B, Ul. .ly, wo - - (rerp@Borov) (7jpLwBérL0v), 
ues; Kish ately 
10 kd 6, Ks 8 (retpéPBorov), Kg uf (TpLd@Bodov 2), Z qa (Tpi@Boror) (Hpra- 
Bérxtov) { | Papplodbe . KB, 
1 1B, on t, Z# po. ITaxalv 
J Or (tpi@Berrov), Noural) prs (tpidBorov) (HprwBerov). Kal 7/00 
Tlaévie qa (retpéPoror), 
J okn (bBoréds) (i pL@BEXzor). mwé(mroxe) ITadve | ESS 
Nourai) prB (dBorJos) (HuewBersov). [eli\s T]ob7\o EMT @KE) ? 

‘The third upon baths. At Busiris: Aristander son of Thibron 1320 drachmae. The 
period from Mecheir to Epeiph at 91 drachmae 4 obols, 550 dr.; from Mesore to Tubi at 
128 dr. 2 ob., 770 dr. He ought therefore to pay for every four days 13 dr. 4 ob. 

‘Paid: on Mecheir 2nd, 2 dr. 41 ob.; 3rd, 2 dr. 4 ob. &c.’ 

3-4. Since the two half-yearly periods commenced with Mecheir and Mesore the year 
must have been reckoned from one of those two months. Mecheir being put first would 
be more naturally regarded as the starting-point, and that view is to some extent corroborated 
by 114. 4, 115. 5, 24; cf. 114. 3-5, note. On the other hand Mesore as the beginning of 
a financial year is supported by the evidence of 183 and Rev. Laws lvi. 5. In any 
case it is strange that in matters directly relating to taxation the regnal or at any rate some 
year which differed from the revenue year beginning on Thoth 1 was so often employed ; 
cf. pp. 360-1. 

4. For mA(ipes) after a figure to indicate that nothing is wanting cf. e. g. P. Petrie III. 
109 (c). 6. But wA(___), if that be the right reading, may also stand for wAetw, and a figure 
would then have followed, perhaps or, i.e. the difference between the two totals. 

5. (rerp)np(€pov) : or (rerpa)pun(vov), but the former seems preferable on the analogy of 
115. 3; cf. note ad loc. 

6. (rpt@Borov) or (rerpHBodov) may be read at the end of the line in place of (mevr@Boror), 
in which case another entry would follow for the 12th or 13th of the month. 

12. The figure from which oA (jjpuw8edov), the sum of the actual receipts from Mecheir 
to Pachon, is subtracted is the total due for those four months calculated on the scale 
given in l. 3: 91 dr. 4 ob.x 4 = 366 dr. 4 ob. 230 dr. 4 ob. subtracted from this leaves 
136 dr. 34 ob., which were still owing. To this deficiency is added the estimated total for 
Pauni in accordance with the scale in ]. 3, making 228 dr. 13 obols, from which are 
deducted the actual receipts for Pauni, 46 dr., leaving 182 dr. 14 ob. still owing at the end 

of that month. How this deficiency was met was being explained when the papyrus 
breaks off. 




Mummy A. 24X15:2 mM. B.C. 239 (238) or 214 (213). 

An account of corn received during Epeiph, rendered by an official in charge 
of the State granaries of the Kwirns ; cf. the monthly returns of sitologi to the 
strategus in Roman times, e. g. B. G. U. 835. The total is curiously small, only 
1383 artabae of olyra and 12 of wheat, the olyra being apparently the repayments 
of loans of seed for green crops, while the wheat was for the crown-tax, an 
impost levied on special occasions ; cf. P. Tebt. I. pp. 223-4. The papyrus is 
dated in the 8th year of a king who is certainly not earlier than Euergetes, for 
the handwriting, which is extremely cursive, approximates more than that of 
most documents in this volume to the second century B.C. style; the reign may 
be that of Philopator, though the latest certain date found in these papyri 
is the 25th year of Euergetes (90). On the right are the beginnings of lines 
of another document in a different hand, and on the verso is part of another 

["Erou|s n, mapa ‘Apovvédpios 
[ro]U mpos trois On(cavpois) tod Ka/rov. 
aitov Tov peyeTpnpuévov 
[€ly tar “Erreip: yAwpay eis oméppa 
5 [dlAup@v pdnd, orepdvov 
n (€rous) mup(av) 6, ¢ (Erovs) mup(@v) n, / mup(@r) 8, 
[djAvpav pAnd, £ 7d Kal? &y- 
év Tédnt eis tovs mepi Podyiv 
[. .|xapns tod Kaddorpadrov epi 
10 Poy ydAwpav on(Epua) orX(vpav) eZ, 
[6] adros tod ITappeviwvos yX(wpadv) om(€ppa) orX(upov) péZ, 
[S]rpdtwv rod Pidimmov wept 'Acovav 
[ x|A(@pav) om(épya) dd(vpav) pyd’, 
[els Tadlrd yA(wpv) orép(ua) bA(upGv) prne. 
15 [év DeBijyer Ocddwpos trav é€ “Ay- 
[kup@v odews| . a orepdvov srup(av) 
[n (€rovs) mup(@v) 8, ¢) (€rovs) mup(av)-7, 
Traces of 3 more lines. 

8. This line inserted later. 


‘The 8th year, from Haronnophris, superintendent of granaries of the Koite district. 
Account of corn measured in Epeiph: for green-stuffs for seed 1381 artabae of olyra, for 
the crown-tax of the 8th year 4 artabae of wheat, for that of the 7th year 8 artabae of wheat. 
Total 12 artabae of wheat, 138} artabae of olyra. Of this the details are: paid at Talaé 
on account of holdings at Psuchis...chares on account of the holding of Callistratus at 
Psuchis for green-stuffs for seed 474 artabae of olyra; the same on account of the holding 
of Parmenion for green-stuffs for seed 474 artabae of olyra; Straton on account of the holding 
of Philippus at Assua for green-stuffs for seed 434 artabae of olyra; total for green-stuffs for 
seed 1381 artabae of olyra. At Phebichis, Theodorus from Ancyronpolis for the crown-tax 
paid in wheat of the 8th year 4 artabae of wheat, for that of the 7th year 8 artabae of 

4. xAwpov cis oneppa: cf. 119. 17, where 404 artabae of wheat are paid for x\wpay 
among various items of receipts from a xAnpos, and the payments for xAwpa in 51. 2 and 

8. Tadne: cf. 36. 3, note. 

cis Tous: SC. KAnpous ; Cf. Tov Ka\Xorpdrov (Sc. KAjpov) in |. 9, and notes on 52, 26, 112. 
6, and 118. 2. Whether these «Ajjpoe were really owned by cleruchs or had reverted to the 
Crown is not clear. 

15-6. ’Ay|xupov médews: cf. pp. 9-10, 67. 4, and 112. 74. Very likely one or both 
words were abbreviated, unless the word before orepdvov (of which the last letter may be 
instead of a) was an abbreviation. sup(6v) after orepavov seems superfluous ; cf. Il. 5-6. 


Mummy A. Fr. (az) 17-8 x 26, Fr. (6) 26-2 x 20-8 cm. About B.c. 250. 

Two fragments of an account of olyra, written probably by a sitologus or 
other official of the @ycavpés, in a large and clear hand over an obliterated 
document. Lines 1-15, which begin a new section headed omépua and may be the 
actual commencement of the account, give a list of seed issued to or repaid by 
cultivators of crown or cleruchic land (cf. 1. 2, note). Lines 17-36 give various 
details of expenditure for horses and other purposes; and in I. 37 begins a list 
of (apparently) payments to various persons from Pharmouthi to Mesore, the 
names of women being placed after those of men. 

Fr, (2). Col. i. Cols: 
oTréppa: Xolax B- 
Ilaveiss eis tov 'Idcovos oXupav) A¢Z, immos dA(upev) B, 
TTodépalvy els tov Oeodépov pos, n Urmos odX(upov) B, 
Avrixpdrns eis Tov IoAvaivou vs, 20 10 imtois oA(upav) B. 

5 Iloxwts els rov Tipoxpdrov pke, 


IToxwis eis tiv Ocoypyorov 
Oiwdpvya ind, 
els] tidy 'Idcovos dX(upar) a¢Z, 
ITaovrns pe, 

10 NexOois éyZz, 
Sovreis eis tov Ocow..... ancien 
Stcdis eis tov Ilapa’..... pba 
Kal iy éoretpay Of......... 
(....|rov didpuvya [ .. 

15 [| 6A(vpav) wvnd’. 
[... .|popor | 

Fr. (6). Col. i. 

Ilaxavs € immois 6X(vpaor) a, 
t oA(upov) B, ts al, Ky az, 
Ke al, / or(upov) ¢z. 

35 ITatu B od(vpev) az, > az, 
Mele te UL, VA 6|\A(upav) «. 
Pappovo ciroperpia: 

M'a\Owirns or(vpav) y, 

Kparivos oX(upar) y, [ /6)A(upar) s. 

40 Ilaivi oiroperpia: 
. KXiros y, 
‘Dorijos y, 
Ie dvs 7, 
[MerdvO.0s 6,| 
45 (Kefdror 34,| 
(Ooropraios y,| 

(ITaois y,| 
[PSpyar y, 
“AroAdOvIOS Y,_] 



30 TO 



‘Ovvddppt réxrovie . , 

VaUKAnpal y, 
Suvreds apyxwe peds. , 
Suvreds TeroBd arios . , 
Evayépat s, 

A P : 
Tois Awpiwvos |. 

\ ww , Ar 
Kal €d@ka avT@L..... 

wt €hdtT@ evpéOin..... 

Obpyaly y, 
Kiiro's y, 
Kedgdrar [6, 
Ooropraijols y, 
IIo@vs y, 
/ OXup@v) ts. 
MatOwt\rn\s oA(vpav) y, 
Kpativos y, 
Meddv6.0 $s} 6, 
Kedpddov é, 
Ooropraios y, 
Kdddos y, 
Kiizros y,; 
Nikias y, 
ITacis y, 
Odpyev y, 


5° \Kp\ativos y, ArodAdovids] y, 
[Nijkias y, ‘Torijos y, 
[ITAd\rev y, 80 =©ITddrov y, 
[Ma\Oatrns y, ‘Appudois y, 
[KAlddos y, Iloévs y, 

55 © [Alppudous y, Atolvvjota ¢, 
Avovucia ¢, Muppivy B, 
Muppirn B; 85  BovBddov B, 
[BovBdr1o\y B, Sipov B, 

[/ or(upov) vn. / oXupor) €. 
Pe (é); 

[.. + Jer 
[Aotl7rat apyupiov [ 

gO —- Tupov e 
36. ¢ of ce corr. from y, and at the end of the line corr. from ¢. 

2, els tov lacovos: Sc. KkAnpov, as we think, though in P. Petrie III. 100, an account 
resembling the earlier part of 118, the editors supply Adyov with eis rév. But xAjpov is more 
easily coupled with éépvya (ll. 7 and 14) than Adyov; and cf. 117. 8, where with es rovs epi 
Vixw probably xAnpous is to be supplied, and P. Petrie II. 39 (a). 10, where seed is ordered 
to be issued «is rév Avotmnov xd(jpor) (cf. Il. 13-4 €[i|s Tov ’Aokddrwvos Kai Somdtpov mpecButépov 
kAnpovs). It is not clear whether the account in ll. 2-15 refers to repayments of loans or to 
the actual advances of seed-corn, like P. Petrie III. go. The "Idcovos kdjpos must have been 
very large, since besides the 374 artabae issued to Paneuis, 974 artabae are advanced to 
another of its yewpyot (I. 8), and probably the entries in Il. 9-10 also refer to it. The 
advances of seed altogether in this section seem larger than would be expected in the case 
of regular cleruchic holdings which rarely exceeded 100 arourae, and the «Ajpou here are 
probably in reality Bacuckoi; cf. 52. 26, note. It is not certain whether 118 concerns 
an Oxyrhynchite or a Kofte village, but if the village is Oxyrhynchite the "Iacovos kAjpos 
here may be identical with the "Ido{o|vos «Ajpos in P. Oxy. 265. 4. 

6. The issue of seed for a canal is curious; cf. ll. 13-4. It must have been a deep 
cutting with sloping sides. ‘Theochrestus is more likely to have been the constructor (cf. 
the KAévos Si@pvé in P. Petrie II. 6. 5), or some person after whom it was called, than the 

12. Mapa is very likely Mapa! pevov ; cf. 99. 7. 

13. Perhaps Ofeo|ypno|rov; cf. 1, 6. But there was plenty of room for Geoxpyarov 

16. This line is probably a heading like 1. 1. [Macro|pdpov, sc. xopn (cf. 87. 6), is 
possible. kx @dprov is unlikely, for the letter after pop resembles » more than w, and a heading 
would be expected to project to the left. 

37. oroperpia: this word, which in itself might mean simply a measuring out of corn, 
is the technical term used for official payments from the State granaries to individuals for 

119. ACCOUNTS 317 

salaries, &c. (cf. 83. 5, introd.); and it is probable that the persons in the following lists 
were recipients, not payers. The grants may have been for kdrepyov (wages); cf. 119. 4, 
where xdrepyov is coupled with éxpépiov and ovéppa in connexion with a kAnpos. 

42-9. These names are restored from the list in ll. 68-86, which apparently agreed 
with that in Il. 41-58 with the addition of one more woman (Sipov B, 1. 86). 

88-90. These lines are probably from the bottom of Fr. (a), Col. i or ii. 

119. Account oF RENT. 

Mummy A 9. 26-4 X10-4cm. About B.c. 260. 

A statement of the rents due from a cleruchic holding, with an account of 
the amounts paid. It is not clear whether the land was really in the occupation 
of a cleruch or belonged to the category of BactArkoi kAjpor, on which see introd. 
to 39 and 52. 26, note. The latter is perhaps the more likely alternative, for 
the style is rather that of an official than a private document. The rent is 
classified under three heads: grain, which is reckoned in wheat and paid in olyra ; 
green-stuffs, reckoned in wheat; and sesame, reckoned in sesame with its 
equivalent in wheat. The sesame was measured by an artaba of 40 choenices 
(cf. 74. 2, note); and the ratios of the values of wheat and olyra and wheat and 
sesame were given as approximately 24:1 and 1:33. 166, a more imperfect 
duplicate of this papyrus, supplies the figures in ll. 6-8. Both copies were 
probably written in the latter part of the reign of Philadelphus. 

*Eorw 76 éxgpdpiov rod ‘ArrodA@vioy 

KAN pov (mup@v) Tv, [ 
oTeppa l, 
Karéiphyov a 

5 pEemerpnrau 
Papevat Ky odu(poy) pir, 
Bappod&c S ddu(pav) pron’, 

La oAUpar) p§ al, 
kK ddu(pav) a, 
10 K¢ Odu(pav) pt, 

ITaxeavs k  odv(pav) KEL 
Tlaivt «8  ddrv(pOv) [].]] « 
‘Emeilt xg  odv(pav) [. -| 

kal o0Au pov) 

318 FEB EEL AP aR] 

is Xoiay ta ddu(parv) |. .| 
/ odu(pov) TAyZe, / (mupav) ToyLo’. 
kal yAwpa@v (mup@v) LL. 
Kat onodmov pétpat a.( ) (2, L 
Kka0apors ZO 
20 om éppa LZ xoi(vixes) 6, 
Nowmal) > yxoirexes) o, L 
Xopatix[d|y L, Aoumat) eL xollvikes) 5, eZ xollvixes) 5, 
ai (mupav) 6¢Z, / [(mupav) vn. 
/ els tavtd (mupov) vrAale. 



‘The rent of the holding of Apollonius is 350 artabae of wheat, for seed 10 art., for 
wages 10 art., total 370 art.; of which there has been measured :—on Phamenoth 23rd 
188 art. of olyra, on Pharmouthi 4th 1363 art., on the 11th 1614, on the 2oth 200, on the 
27th 110, on Pachon 2oth 254, on Pauni r2th ro, on Epeiph 26th. . and... , on Choiak 
11th. . , total 9333 art. of olyra, which are 3733 art. of wheat. On account of green-stuffs 
404 art. of wheat; and of sesame by the... measure 74 art., from which deduct # art. for 
cleaning and 4 art. 4 choenices for seed. Remainder 6 art. 6 choen., of which the 
embankments-tax is 4 art., remainder 53 art. 6 choen.; total 54 art. 6 choen., which are 173 
art. of wheat, total 58 art. of wheat; making altogether 431% art. of wheat.’ 

4. katé p you: as the ro artabae reckoned under this head are evidently additional, they 
must have been due to the owner, whether the State or a cleruch (cf. introd.), for labour 
supplied. For xdrepyov in the sense of wages cf. e.g. P. Petrie ILI. 39. ii. 5, 63. 3. 166 has 
/ré at the end of this line in defiance of the arithmetic; rv in ]. 2 is there quite certain. 

6. In the abbreviation of 6dv(pav) here and in 166 the three letters are written one 
above the other, A below, then o, and last v, which consists of a shallow curve. 

12. It is doubtful what was written between ddv(pov) and +, and whether there was any 
erasure.. In the corresponding place in 166 6dv(pav) « seems to have been written twice, 
and 6Av(pav) may have been similarly repeated here. 

16. This ratio of the value of olyra and wheat, approximately 1:24, agrees with that 
given in 85. 14-5; cf. note ad loc. 

17. The absence of any dates of payments in the following section suggests that it is 
only an estimate like that in ll. 2-4. But the deductions on account of «d@apors, &c., and 
the improbability that the whole of the rent in grain would have been paid before any of 
that on other crops, are in favour of supposing that these items had also been paid. The 
figure after » in |. 17 is uncertain ; for 4 artaba is elsewhere in this papyrus and 166 written 
as a half-circle, like the symbol for 4 obol (cf. also notes on 52. 33 and 53. 20), while in 
this place it is square and might be taken for > with the upper stroke rubbed off. But to 
read po here causes difficulties in 1. 23. 

xAwpav : for payments on account of yAwpa cf. notes on 51. 2, 52. 26, and 112. 9. 

18. The abbreviation of the name of the measure consists of an a, immediately above 
which is a horizontal stroke with a short vertical one depending from it to the right of the 

12057 ACCOUNTS 319 

apex of the a. The general effect is very like the common sign for dptd8y ; but ar( ) may 
be meant. Whatever the name, the arithmetic of the following lines shows that this measure 
contained 40 choenices: 74 art. — 1} art. 4 choen. = 6 art. 6 choen., .*. 6 art. — 4 choen. 
= 6 art. 6 choen., .*. 4 art. — 4 choen. = 6 choen., .*. 1 art. = 10 choen. 

1g. xdOapors: cf. P. Petrie III. 129, P. Tebt. 92. g—11, &c. 

20. The abbreviation of yot(uxes) is written as a x having an o above and an « below. 

22. This deduction for xoparikdy, if the land was a Baowixds kAnpos, is rather strange; but 
the meaning may be that a special allowance equivalent to the value of 4 artaba of sesame was 
made to the lessee in connexion with the tax ondykes. In any case 4 art. of sesame cannot 
represent the amount of the tax on the whole «Ajpos, which may be guessed from the amount 
of the rent to have been nearly 80 or even roo arourae. The rate of the yoparixdy was 
often 1 obol per aroura (P. Petrie III. 108. 2, &c., and 112. 13, note), whereas the value of 
4 art. of sesame according to the ratio given in I. 23 would be about 12 art. of wheat. or 
slightly over 3 drachmae, which at the rate of 1 obol per aroura represents a taxing-area of 
about 20 arourae. 

23. The conversion of 54 art. 6 choen. of sesame into 174 art. of wheat implies a 
proportion in values of about 34:1. The value of sesame is here lower than that in Rev. 
Laws xxxix. 3, lili. 16, where an artaba of sesame is priced at 8 dr., ordinarily equivalent to 
4 art. of wheat. Moreover, the artaba of sesame in Rev. Laws contained only 30 choenices, 
that in 119 40 choen.; cf. 1. 18, note. 

25. [he meaning of this number, which is written at the bottom of the papyrus some 
distance below |. 24, is not clear. 

120) Account oF Goats. 

Mummy A. Height 15 cm. B.C. 250-49 (249-8). 

An account rendered to Hipponicus, probably by his steward, of the changes 
that had taken place in a herd of goats during a period of several months in 
the 36th year of Philadelphus. The papyrus is broken into numerous fragments 
of which we print three, the rest providing no new information of interest. The 
goats are classified by colours as white, black, brown, streaked, grey, and mole- 
coloured (I. 15, note) ; cf. the list of horses in P. Petrie II. 35. At the beginning 
the herd numbered 80, and it increased partly through the birth of kids, partly 
through presents to the owner; cf. 123. Lines 30-33, which perhaps end the 
document, state that Botrys (the goat-herd ?) had reported three deaths. 

Fr. (a). Fr. (8): Colt: 
(Erovs) A>, Adyos ‘Imzmovika: A 6v0p 
Tay vbTapxXovcay T poweyéevovTo 
aly@v Kal Tpayov: ayes amd fevior 

AevKal |. mapa Znvoddpov 

320 FLL BEd CPA Yad 

e péraivat |. 15 omaNaKa a, 
ball AeuK a 
Tuppat |. €UK)] a. 
4 ‘\ > \ im 
mokidae |. kal amo THS 
Biase KQe emyovns |. pédatvat |. 
10 VA, ae 20 [moti |Aae |. 
: Tuppa a. 
amd £eviwv evkKi) (a, 
Pie (2), Colnit: Fire). 
FS Xoiax 30 aviveyKey O& 
la r - 
T poo eyevov|TO Borpus tereXev- 
(770 (oo, 2 THKVlas atyas 
amo fevioiy Tapa 71) y 
Kpitwvos epoev es . Tpets. 
AevKot |. 

13. éeviov: for the burdens entailed by the custom of giving presents to officials 
chiePs Petrie Il. 10 (4) and Po “Debt.g: 184, note. 

15. omddaxa: this form, which should be nominative sing. fem., is probably an error 
for omadaxn; cf. P. Petrie If. 35 (a). iii. 2, where Wilcken reads omadak . |v m@A(ov); in 
(d) 5, where omddaxos occurs, the context is obscure. Hesychius says that ozddakes, 
properly ‘moles, was used for eiSos inar. 

121. Private Account. 

Mummy A 4. Fr. (a) 30-5 x 85, Fr. (4) 10-8 x9 cm. B.C. 251-0 (250-49). 

An account, probably rendered by a servant to his master, of expenditure 
for various purposes. The two groups of entries on the recto are separated by 
a long space left blank. On the verso is a detailed account of miscellaneous 
household expenses from the 14th to the 19th days of a month, like P. Petrie 
III. 137-40. The handwriting is a large irregular cursive, probably of the 
reign of Philadelphus, though the reading of the date in |. 1 is not quite certain. 
Whether the writing on Fr. (4) is part of the same column as that on Fr. (a) 

121. ACCOUNTS 321 

or of a second column is not clear; but the interval between II. 45 and 46 is in 
any case trifling, since both refer to the same day. 

Fr. (az). Recto. 

((Erovs)| Ac, mapa Ayydpios (mupay ?) v 
(Spaxuat?) p, dv eyparpas 
AOd]p ddvovov (Spaxpuds) p, 
70. eptoly (Spaxuas) AB, 
5 AdeEdrdpait] (Spaxuas) 7, 
kai euol did IT[d\AAys (Spaypas) 6, 
ky mapa Tedriols (Spaypas) 6, 
Kz addXas {.] 

ehaBes (Spaxpas) €, / éuol (le]kee, 
10 “Iodépar if, Atovicar 7, 
emt Tov Kavvdkny (Spaypds) 6, 

[Zolirer (Spaxpas) 8, Adi (Opaxpas) n, 
[--].- 4 (Gpaxpas ?) 6. 

Verso. Gol: i. 

mal 15 letters |p [. , 
15 Ilerecon( ) (réraprov), Edauov you ) [. , 
kal eis Tov owvdoveirny [. , 
Oeppov (réraprov), Kif\ke (réraprov), n. . [Eel steae:s 
oiv[o|s (6Bodds) (réraprov), 
/ (8paxpi)) a (retpdBorov) (rérapror). 
20 l€. €Aatov trai(Siows) (AutwBérov), Kal mra(diots) (jprwBérLov), 
‘Hpaknrei(dnt) dypov (6Borébs), Kixe (réraprov), 
Oeppov (rétaprov), gdda (réraprov), 
EXatov xo) (7érapror), ovuxit|n( ) Te. . [(6Bodbs), 
oivos (6Bodds) (térapror), 
25 / (mwevtdBodov) (rérapror). 
45. €datoy ma(idiors) (ut@BédLov), Kal Tratoc(ors) (r)pur@PérLov), 

mr. (0): 




Oeppov (réraprov), €dAaoy you ) (rérapror), 
“Hpakdel(dnt) (jpiwBédiov), xdptros (Téraprov), 
kike (tTéraprov), otvos cot (d30Ads) (jpewBéerx0v), 
epydrne (pui@Bédiov), KpduBn (TérapTor), 
Kal €dalov (Téraptov), dptos pol (TéTaprov), 
évAa (réraprov), 

J. (mevtBorov) (7)pL@BeNt0r). 
if. épiOois epiwy (retpéBorov) (jprwBerLov), Evra [. , 
€Aatlov mau(Sious) (HpiwBérLov), Kat matdiors (pL@BErLov), 
K(kt| (réraprov), Oepyid|y (réraprov), X|..]. @ (réraprov ?), 
[...]. xépros (réraproy), [.]. €o[.]...[.. 
[eciliaae al. ..| €Aatoy ower (TéTapTor), 
(otvos| col (oBords ?) (jutwBédtov) (réraprov), PopeOpa (SuvdBodou), 
papd(via) |. ,| EAatoy els ( ) (TérapTor), 
kai eis Ta dpvidia (réraprov), 

/ (Spaxpai) B (jpewBérr0v). 
[c]n. €Afalcov mau(Sious) (jprwBerrov), masdfors [(jptwBErtLov), 
.[....]. (réraprov), papdvu(a) (réraprov), Kikit. , 

fire detterse dy lelgamiece see 

“Hpaxneidne (jpewBédwov), otvio|s oot (dvdBorou), 

OWov (jpewBérov), aApita (ptwBédiov), Eatov col (rérapror), 

[€lAavov dyrau (rptwBérLov), mrasdiors xvabo(s) (réraprov), 
/ (Spaxpi)) & (rpi@Borov) (jpi@Bérrov) (rérapror). 

10. pdvntes (dBorOs) (jpiwBérLov), KpduBn (rérapror), 

kat €aoy (réraptov), EVAa (HutwPEdLov) (TéETapTor), 

oivos aot (dBorés) (tpimBeror), Ploar (dBodrJds), o.O.[.., 

€Xaov dpvi(Oios) (réraprov), Kai els Bada(velov) (rérapror), 

KpiOai (réraprov), médAt (0BodrOs) (TéTapTov), ALBalve(ros) . , 

yuyyvris | 

TEUT| Aov 

pod (réraptov), [ 

121. ACCOUNTS 323 

48. (7pu@BeAtor) corr. from (réraprov). 55- |. yoyyuXs. 57- 0 of poa above the 

‘The 35th year, from Anchophis for 50 artabae roo drachmae, of which you wrote off 
on account of Athur for a ring 40 dr., for a cup (?) 2 dr., to Alexander 8 dr., to me 
through Polle 4 dr.; 23rd, from Teos 4 dr.; 26th, in addition {.| dr. 

‘You received 60 dr., of which 15 were given to me, to Isidorus 12, to Dionysus 8, 
for the cloak 4 dr., to Zoilus 4 dr., to Didis 8 dr., to ... 4 dr. 

‘(r4th) Peteise...4 0b. oil..., and for the linen garment ..., hot water 
1 ob., castor oil 3 ob... . . wine 14 ob. Total 1 dr. 44 ob. 15th, oil for the children 
2 ob. and to the children 3 ob., to Heracleides for sauce 1 ob., castor oil 4 ob., hot water Z ob., 
wood 1 ob., oil... 2o0b.,...of onyx (?) 1 ob., wine rob. Total 5; 0b. 16th, oil for the 
children 4 ob. and to the children 4 ob., hot water 4 ob., oil ... 4 ob., to Heraclides 
1 ob., grass 1 ob., castor oil + ob., wine for yourself 14 ob., to a labourer § ob., cabbage 
2 ob., and oil 4 ob., bread for myself + ob., wood 4 ob. Total 53 ob. 17th, to the 
wool-weavers 44 ob., wood... oil for the children 3 ob. and to the children 4 ob., 
castor oil 2 ob., hot water 1 ob., . .. grass Zob., ... oil for a sauce 4 ob., wine for 
yourself 13 ob., transport 2 ob., radishes [.] ob., oil: for . . . } ob. and for (cooking) the 
birds 2 ob. Total 2dr. 0b. 18th, oil for the children $ ob., to the children 3 ob., 

. 2 ob., radishes 4 ob., castor oil ..., to Heraclides 4 ob., wine for yourself 2 ob., 
sauce 4 ob., meal 4 ob., oil for yourself 3 ob., oil for a sauce % ob., a cup for the children 
2 ob. Total 1 dr. 330b. 19th, bowls (?) 13 ob., cabbage 4 ob., and oil 7 ob., wood @ ob., 
wine for yourself 14 ob., roots (?) 1 ob.,... oil for the birds 4 ob., and for a bath 3 ob., 
barley 2 ob., honey 14 ob., frankincense... turnip ... beet ... pomegranate 3 ob. ...’ 

4. Perhaps morépdoly, i.e. sornpiov. 

8. It is very doubtful whether a figure was ever inserted after a\Xas. 

15. xo( ) is more probably a substantive in the dative than an adjective agreeing with 
Zraov. Perhaps yoi(par), i.e. ‘oil for (cooking) the pig’; cf. 1.53 @taov dpu(Bios). The 
sign for 1 obol in this papyrus is the same as the writer's r, the right-hand portion of the 
cross-bar being omitted. 

17. Oepudv: sc. Sep probably ; cf. P. Petrie IIL. 140 (c). 6 USap Oepp{dy. It might also 
mean a lupine. At the end of the line ‘H[p|ax{A]<i(8yz) (réraprov) is a possible, but not very 
satisfactory, reading. 

23. The doubtful r may be the sign for 2 obol (cf. note on 1. 15), in which case dvux/ | 
is probably for dvixiov, and ¢ . . [(ipsoBedov) (réraprov) must follow. With the reading 
adopted in the text, évvx{«» is more likely to be an abbreviation of the adjective ovvxwos. 

36. Possibly x| v7 |pa (réraprov) ; cf. P. Petrie III. 140 (a). 5 xurpa x(adxots). 

40. Cf. P. Petrie III. 140 (d). 2 fpapana dore &joa. After eis a word has been omitted 
which was contrasted with ra épviéia in |. 41. 

©. pavnres appears to be a plural of pavys (or pavjs), meaning an earthenware vessel 
(cf. Il. 4 and 48), a sense found in a passage quoted from Nicon by Athenaeus, p. 487 ¢. 
The existence of the genitive in -nros from this word has been a matter of doubt, which the 
present passage will remove. 

52. puoa is an unknown word ; possibly pi¢ae was meant. 

56. ted7[Aov: oedrAoy and cevrov are the forms used in the Petrie papyri. 





122. Mummy A. 7x14:7cm. Beginning of an account of corn. Lines 

1-5 AtdAoyos 6 Tpds “Qpov ba Kicoov kp(tOjs) (aptadBas) B, Tocedmvint 
ddA(vpSv) (apraBas) €, Kicows dd(vpGv) (apraBas) y, dAAas Kioowr ddA(upar) y, 
Kparne (mupov) (apraBas) y, AToAASH par (mvpGv) (apraBas).. The writing 
is across the fibres. About B.C. 250. 8 lines. 

123. Mummy A. 8-3x8-6cm. A short account of sheep received by the 

writer from different persons, some being bought. The text is Hap’ év 
éxyw mpoBata’ ’AToAAwviov a, Lwmatpov a, ’AdeEdvipov a, kal Tapa Tod vilolb 
z\0|0 Aewlov tips a, mapa Anyunrplov ex KéBa (cf. 56. 6) a, Zevddoros Tuyqs a, 
Nixavdpos a. Written probably between B.C. 265 and 245. Complete. 
10 lines. 

124. Mummy Ag. 14x9-7 cm. Conclusion of a contract for the loan of 

183 artabae of olyra from Zenodorus (cf. 59) to Menonides; cf. 86. 
The text is]. apyapre..[ 11 letters mldvroy petpwr BlaciArKk G1, eav [oe pi] 
am0bGL anoreodt[m T\yv [rips] aptaBns Exdorns Spaypas [d]vo (cf. 86. 12, 
note), kal 7 mpagis €orw Zn{volddpwr Kat GAdAw. strep Zyvodd[pov] mapa 
Mevwridov mpds Baotdikld (cf. 98. 11). (2nd hand) “Apyimros Pirogevov 
(cf. 180) Kupyvatos ris émryoris éypawa ovvtdgalyros] Mevwridov. (3rd hand) 
Mevwvidns Lepons idivérns Tév Zwidov ([ gs lal heugas J] a7T0b%ow ddAupGv apraBas 
S€KACKTW Tlov TeTapToy Kata TO GUpBoArov Totrof{yv}. On the verso a partly 
obliterated line and below it Mevewvidov (apraBa) mZd’. Written about 
B.C. 250 in the Oxyrhynchite nome. 149 lines. 

125. Mummy A (probably Ag). 12:9x8cm. Conclusion of another similar 

loan from Zenodorus to Menonides (cf. 124) for 311 artabae of olyra with 
signatures of Archippus and Menonides. On the verso (dpaxpal) wd and 
below Mevaridov (apraBa) Aa{o’.. Written across the fibres about B.C, 250 
in the Oxyrhynchite nome. 17 lines. 

126. Mummy A (probably Ag). 4:5x9:2 cm. Fragment of another similar 

loan from Zenodorus to Menonides (cf. 124), beginning Znvodélpar Kat 
Gddwt irep| Zyvoddpov mapa Mévevos alpac|rovre mpds Bacirixd. [Mevelvos 
also occurs in the signature of Archippus, but {Me|vwvidns in that of 
Menonides himself. On the verso Mevwridou otpBora (aprdBar?) (dpaxual) 
vO (0 corr.) Written about B.C. 250 in the Oxyrhynchite nome. 
9 lines. 


127. Mummy A (probably Ag). 9:5x10-3 cm. Beginnings of lines of 
a letter from Zenodorus (cf. 59) to Cresilaus, ordering him to send certain 
persons under arrest; cf. 59-62. The text is (1) Znvddwplos] Kpnowddwr 
xaipew. [ mepedyacw eis O€v-| (2) pvyxitov kbunv OGAOw. Kaos 
av ovv moujcats =|. (3) attovs meupas mpds Huds pera pr[Aakhs €TEL OUK 
odi-] (4) you apyipioy apnpmaxdres eu. . [ (5) od epi dv dv jpiv ypddye....| 
On the verso Kpy[oAdwr. Written across the fibres about B.C. 250 in 
the Oxyrhynchite nome. 6 lines, of which probably only about 4 is 

128. Mummy A17. 4x85 cm. Beginning of a contract dated in the 15th 
year of Philadelphus (B.C. 271-0 or 270-69), corresponding to 99. 1-4 
and probably written by the same person, perhaps a duplicate of 99. 
4 lines. 

129. Mummy A (found with 86). 9:3x7-4 cm. An acknowledgement by 
a military settler of a loan of 15 artabae of olyra from Docimus ; cf. 86. 
The text is ’A[woAA]dbr0s Ziwov Mvod{s] ris emvyovijs Aox{i|polt] xalpelv), 
€xo Tapa cod dAvpOv apraBas Sexdtevte, TodTOV b€ cat TOV oiTov aTodéaw 
ey pyvi Aatoion ev ru évdror kall] tpraxoora: ret] oirov xalOapov] pér|p'or 
BaowXtkG. bv Grokaraotiocw colt... Written in B C. 247 (246). Incomplete, 
the end being lost. Io lines. 

130. Mummy A (probably AQ). 22-4x7cm. Beginnings of lines of a letter 
from Demophon to Ptolemaeus similar to 53, commencing [Anulopav 
IIroA\epatwr xatpew. anéoradkd cou ro T\poodyye Awa THs mpdrns (2) dexnuepov| 
Tod “AO’p rOv KalraveveynKOTwV ?......06- ] év rots xara oé [rémols. mretpd 
oty dveyyvav] dopadGs. Oadéis ex rhs [mapemervys . . .] Xepoapdxov (ike: 
followed by a list of names arranged under kAjjpou (€k rod “Hpaxdeldov, éx 
Tod [roAepailov, éx rod Ku dpéovs, €x rod "AtmoAA@viov). Amongst the names 
occurring are “Apximmos Pidogeriov (cf. 124), Néorwp ’AOnvallov, Mepureds, 
Maxdras and Iaxayis. Written about B.C. 247. 27 lines. 

131. Mummy A2. 18-5x109cm. Part of a letter to an official mentioning 
the chief-priest at Phebichis (cf. 72. 1-2). The text is Iler/olctpios rod 
“Apu[érjov dpxiepews x. .....[..] ev DeBixer. KadGs dv roijoalis] ef cor 
paiverar ovvrdgas ‘Twovdn: [13 letters] werppoar [11 letters] €Aaoy ert ev Paddue 
pnvt [10 letters] olkovduos [. Written about B.C. 245. 8 lines. 

132. Mummy A. Fr. (a) 8-5x15:5 cm. Two fragments containing parts 
of two columns of a list of payments for various taxes, including the 
evvdpuov (cf. 52, introd.), the tax of sy («’6’; cf. 80, 95, and 112. 38, note), and 
the >” (i.e. &xrn) PiradéAd(wr) (cf. 109) for which 3 obols are paid at Tadad 
by TlroAeuaios kal "Avdpoyaxos, and 1 dr. 3 ob. at Suwdpy by LeuPdeds, 



besides otvov rysjv (i.e. the value of wine paid for the ékrn), for- which 
4 drachmae are paid at Swdpv by ‘Apdixwims and another person 
respectively. The village of Movxivapvé, the proper name Vado, and 
the goth year (of Philadelphus) are also mentioned. Written about 
Bac. 255) 

1838. Mummy A5. 10-9x7-2cm. Beginnings of lines of part of a petition 

to Eutychus, dioecetes (?), from a farmer of the beer-tax (cf. 106, introd.). 
The text is Etrdyou diounrie xaipew.| LoxorGms Tadw'... . dxd xdpns ?| 
DeBevvirov adltxodpar im “AwoAAw\iov Tod oikovoplodvtos thy “Hpaxdet}bov 
pepida cat Arof14 letters] ééraBov thy Cirnpav Tod . . (erovs) axd] Mecopy ews 
[17 letters] . vos (Spaypav) wAl 15 letters xa}reotn[. On the verso Etrvxor] 
mapa Soxovdmos mp(ds) "AToAABrioy. For Mesore as the beginning of 
a financial year cf. note on 116. 3-4, and pp. 360-1. Written about 
BuGii2 50: 

134. Mummy A4. 7:5x4-4cm. Fragment of the beginning of a contract 

written between the 19th and 27th year of Philadelphus; cf. 94. 4-5, 
note. The text is Baowredor{ros TroAeuatlov rob TroAepatov kal rod viod] 
[Mrodeualolv grovs . . é’ tepéws 21 letters] ’AAcEdvdpfov kal OeGv *AdAPav 
kavnpdpov ’Apouvdns PiraldeAgov Pirw|tépas tis 30 letters] ev Adpoditn[s woAEt 
3 letters] “Apyatos Apl. 

135. Mummy A4. Fr. (a) 95x44 cm. Two fragments of an account, 

containing a list of names and sums of money, each entry in Fr. (a) 
beginning with xe, i.e. the 25th of the month. The names Tepats (v corr. 
from s?) and [ereappés occur. Written about B.C. 250. On the verso 
part of another account. 

1386. Mummy Ars. 10:-5x88cm. Receipt, having the same formula as 

106, for 20 drachmae paid by Petosiris (cf. 187, 189, and 141), agent of 
Taémbes, for Gurnpd, 11 drachmae (dexauiay) being on account of 

‘Pharmouthi, and g on account of Pachon, to NuxédAaos tp(arecirns) and 

Lrorojris S0(kyaoctHs) at Phebichis ; cf. 106, introd. At the end are the 
signature of Dorion (zapévros Awplovos 76 atrd (Spaxpat) etkoor), and a line 
of demotic. Dated Pachon 13 of the 3rd year (of Euergetes), i.e. 
B.C. 244 (243). The writing is across the fibres. Practically complete. 
g lines. 

187. Mummy AiI5. 103x7 cm. A similar receipt for 18 drachmae 

xa(Akot) eis x .. (the figures are hopelessly effaced but were probably 
kd (reraprov) ; cf. 106. 8) paid by Petosiris, agent of Taémbes, for utnpa 
on account of Pachon to Nicolaus and Stotoétis; cf. 106, introd. At 
the end are the signature of Dorion and a line of demotic. Dated 


Pachon 30 of the 3rd year (of Euergetes), ie. B.C. 244 (243). The 
writing is across the fibres. Nearly complete, but much obliterated, 
9 lines. 

138. Mummy Al}5. 9:7x7-5 cm. A similar receipt for 8 drachmae 
xa(Akod) eis Kd (réraprov) paid by ‘Apevdérns, agent of Taémbes, for Curnpd 
on account of Athur to [dcwv rtpaneirns and Sroroqris doxysaorys at 
Phebichis ; cf. 106, introd. At the end are the signature of Dorion and 
a line of demotic. Dated on Athur 24 of the 2nd year (of Euergetes), 
i.e. B.C. 246 (245). Practically complete. 49 lines. 

1389. Mummy A1l5. 9:5x6-3 cm. Another similar receipt for 9 drachmae 
of copper for (vrmpa on account of Phaophi paid ‘Hpakdeiwu [rpameC|irm Kal 
Nixo|Adwt dox|iuacrij. at Phebichis by Petosiris, agent of Taémbes, from 
Talaé ; cf. 106, introd. At the end are the signature of ‘Dorion and 
a line of demotic. Written across the fibres about B.c. 247. Incomplete, 
the beginnings of the first 5 lines being lost. 11 lines. 

140. Mummy A115. 15:-7x8 cm. ‘Another similar receipt for 19 dr. 
5% obols for durmpa on account of Phaophi paid to Pason and Stotoétis 
by AiBus, agent of Taémbes ; cf. 106, introd. At the end are the signa- 
ture of Dorion and a line of demotic, and on the verso is a line of demotic. 
Dated on Athur 16 of the 2nd year (of Euergetes), i.e. B.C. 246 (245). 
Written across the fibres. Practically complete. 14 lines. 

141. Mummy A1r5. 11x6-7 cm. Another similar receipt for 15 dr. 3 ob. 
paid for ¢vrnpa on account of Pachon by Petosiris, agent of Taémbes, 
to Nicolaus and Stotoétis ; cf. 106, introd. At the end are the signature 
of Dorion and a line of demotic. Dated on Pachon 22 of the 3rd year 
(of Euergetes), i.e. B.C. 244 (243). Written across the fibres. Complete. 
10 lines. 

142. Mummy A1r5. 11:1 x6-7 cm. Another similar receipt for 12 dr. for 
Curnpa paid [‘HplaxAeiwr rparecirne cal [N\exoAd@r doxiacrqr; cf. 189 and 
106, introd. At the end is the signature of Dorion and a line of demotic. 
Written across the fibres about B.C. 247. Nearly complete, but much 
obliterated. 10 lines. 

143. Mummy A115. 4:7x6-5cm. Receipt for @vAakitixdy paid by a military 
settler probably at Phebichis, similar to 105. The text is (“Erovs) ts 
Meoopy xy. opodroyet “Hpaxdeléns peyetpioOa. mapa Mevexpdrovs ’Aprov 
iN(dpxov) (cf. 105. 3, note) 7d pvdaxitidxdv... The 16th year probably 
refers to Euergetes (B.C. 232-1 or 231-0). Incomplete, the end being 
lost. 5 lines. 

144. Mummy Al5. 4:3x7-9 cm. Beginning of a notice of loss, similar to 


36 and 37. Lines 1-4 (“Erovs) im Hax[ovs . .| spooldyye|Apa Tapa *Apevvea's] 
‘Appidoe. dudrakitne kouns Tardy (cf. 36. 3, note) drodwAfe|kdvar (1. -Kévar; cf. 
37. 5). The 18th year probably refers to Euergetes (B.C. 230-29 or 
229-8). 5 lines. 

145. Mummy A. Fr. (2) 4:8x9:3 cm. Seven fragments of a contract, of 
which one contains part of the protocol, [BaotAevovros TroXe]uatov rob 
Trovepatfov cal Apawwons Oeav ’Adedpay Erovs| tplrov (ép’) tepéws ’Apxe[Aaou 
rod Anpov? ’AdreEdvdpov kal Oedly "AdeAfOv Kavnpdpov ’Aplowvdns Piradedpov 
’Apowvdns ?|] tis Todeuoxparov(s) pyr[dls “Aplreusotov .. . , i.e. B.C. 245-4 
(244-3). The restorations of the priests’ names are taken from Revillout’s 
edition of dem. P. Louvre 2431 (Chrest. dém. pp. 265 sqq., Rev. Egypt. 
I. p. 7), where they are assigned to the 4th year; cf. p. 373. On the 
absence of the mention of the co! Evepyérat here cf. 171, which was 
written in the 5th year and mentions them, and p. 369. 

146. Mummy 97. 11x94 cm. A much mutilated letter from Tipavdpos, 
dated (2rovs) Ae ‘YrepBeperaiov xO, M[alGzm xO, i.e. B.C. 250 (249). On this 
double date cf. App. i. p. 341. 14 lines. 

147. Mummy 5. 12:7x6cm. Conclusion of a letter, of which the text is 
xepoyplalpyjcw, ov yap diamioredlovow jyiv.  Arovvaddwpos b€ ovdK Eat 
dixols, GAJA& atvtacce [rovs| rapa ool d[tjAaxas prddocety Kat mpololexew iva 
pl) ovp]Bie Hpiy wa. [. . .JOfva. On the verso are the beginnings of 
3 lines, and on a detached fragment parts of 3 more. Early third 
century B.C. 

148. Mummy 5. 53x24 cm. Fragment of a contract of apprenticeship. 
Lines 3-6 élay d€ te kAemTwy.[...... Juevos GAioxntat Tporanoretod|tw Td 
BAdBos du\7hody, pp CEovala 8 LoTw Tépax prjre arox\oltz[ei\y pte apnuepe|vew 
aivev ths Enuluévovs yropns, ef & pt arorewrdrw ris plév n\yepas (rp. Bodor) 
riis d& rfuxrds .,|] e€ovola 8 orw "Emyséver ed. pt) apeoix.. Early third 

‘ century B.C. 6 lines. 

149. Mummy A. Fr. (2) 14x 10-8 cm. Two fragments of an account, 
consisting of a series of names grouped under different days, with a few 
lines of another account in a different hand. The names SovtwrAdya, 
AaXlcxos, OppouBis and ’Omue’s occur. Written about B.C. 250. On the 
verso parts of two much obliterated columns of a document. 

150. Mummy 13. 15:1x9:5 cm. Duplicate of 85, written in a different 
hand, in B.C. 261 (260). Practically complete (but without the demotic 
note). 21 lines. | 

151. Mummy 13. 7:5x10-5cm. Fragment of a letter, of which the text is 
pa) mapayivecdar afl... .|ka Anfo|AAwvidyy tpvyjcovta Tov aumedAGva. el ouv 


TW emtyOpnow Tore? EvTvye ekelvwr kaTaAaAnoor, cvvTEeTaXxapnev yap... Written 
about B.C. 250. 6 lines. 

152. Mummy 98. 8-8x9-2cm. Beginning of a letter, of which the text is 
Xapixrjjs Mivoes xaipew.  e€uBadod eis 7d TAotov GAas Kai AwTOv OTws EXoow 
[oi] vavmnyol, Kat me[pl] tov EVAwy Gv ev[. On the verso Mitoe. Written 
about B.C. 250. 6 lines. 

153. Mummy 117. 10:7x10-2 cm. Account of sums collected by an 
agent of two government officials, beginning ("Erovs) B Padi KO, Aoyos 
apyuptoly tod [AeAolyevpevov b1a “Apevddrny (1. -dd70v) tod map[a “Ay]xo¢uos 
oikovdpov kal IarBedy [rov Blac[ujArkoy ypapplaréa (1. Tla7Betros rod BactAcKod 
ypappatews), followed by a list of six persons who pay 1 dr. or 3 obols. 
The 2nd year no doubt refers to Euergetes (B.C. 246 or 245). Written 
on the verso, the recto being blank. Nearly complete. 1o lines. 

154. Mummy 117. 7-8x8-6cm. A notice from Epichares to Chaeremon 
similar to 80, but with [lacs the place of “Qpos Teéros. 
Written probably in the 35th (revenue) year of Philadelphus (cf. 80. 5 
and 13-4, note), i.e. B.C. 251-0. Nearly complete. g lines, of which the 
last two are demotic. 

155. Mummy 117. 8-2xgcm. Another similar notice from Epichares to 
Chaeremon, much mutilated. Dated in the 35th (revenue) year (of 
Philadelphus), Athur (B.C. 251). 7 lines, the demotic note being 

156. Mummyrsi7. Fr.(a) 4-1x8-6cm. Two fragments of an acknowledge- 
ment by a vav«Anpos similar to 98. The text is Fr. (a) rod mapa 
700 BaciArtkod| ypaypatews wore eis “AXedv|dperiav] eis TO BactArKoy k[pOdr] 
(aptaBas) éxraxicx Alas Tevtaxolotas| cirov Kabapov Kall Gdo|Aov Ke[KooKtvevpevov 
(cf. 98. 11-4), Fr. (4) ]. aoxepn. [. .] eoppayiucpley ... , wét|pwr kal oxvTddne 
ofs [avtos jvéyxato... (cf. 98. 20). Written about the 34th year of 
Philadelphus (B.C. 252-1 or 251-0). 

157. Mummy 18 4-7x16-1 cm. Parts of two columns of an account, of 
which the text is (Col. i) (Erovs) kB. eloevyvoxa [elis rov év Tie addy \oltrov 
ex Tod ldtov omdpov ddr(pav) (dpraBas) 08, [Kal ?] éx Tod tepod & ovvyyayer . . 
(Col. ii) (€rovs) kB. malpa. .jo... eloevjvoxa (svpdv) mapa (with |duror. . 
above the line) ToAguwvos rod éx [Ta|Adovs (cf. 86. 3, note)... The 22nd 
year refers to Philadelphus (B.C. 264-3 or 263-2). On the verso two 
lines of another account. 

158. Mummy 18. 85x19 cm. Fragment of a letter or memorandum 
concerning wheat and olyra of the 32nd, 33rd, and 34th years (of 
Philadelphus). Written about B.C. 251. 10 lines, of which the last 


four are complete. In the right-hand margin and on the verso is some 
effaced writing. 

159. Mummy18. Breadth 7-2 cm. Three fragments of a letter from Zoilus 
to Plutarchus (cf. 68, introd.). Lines 6-10 omépya?] Grav émtxexoupévov Kal 
axpeiov, Oarudcw ody ei miotevers. iets yap ebeKapev ... Addressed on the 
verso TAojurdpy. Written in the reign of Philadelphus, probably about 
B.C. 265. 

160. Mummyto. 11x69 cm. Receipt issued to Clitarchus (cf. 66, introd.) 
for a money payment, of which the text is ‘Hpakxdeddwpos KAeirapxor 
xatpew.  &w mapa Ttodepatov rod} NexoAdov xaAkod (dpaxpas) tpraKxoctas 
reccapd{xovta. Addressed on the verso KAeirdpxwt. Written about B.C. 
230. Apparently nearly complete. 8 lines. 

161. Mummy io. 7-2x7cm. Fragment of a letter to Clitarchus similar 
to 69. The text is | KAewrdpyer xalpew. mapayivov thu xO Tob Papevod .. . 
Written about B.C. 230. 4 lines. 

162. Mummy to. Fr. (a) 24:5x 8-7 cm. Two fragments of another letter 
to Clitarchus, concluding rijs aroyijs tév ’A (SpaxpGr) dv dvapépets dedmxos 
els emoxeviy inmotpodiGy, Kal mr GAAws Toons. Eppwoo, (érovs) 16 Tatvie. 
(B.C. 238 or 227.) 

163. Mummy to. 8-2x7-9 cm. Conclusion of a letter to Clitarchus similar 
to 70 (a) and (6), ending wept kopnv Tpowebdpi Tod “Hpax\eomoAlrov 
(Spaxpdv) « x’ (i.e. eikoorhr) (Spaxpijy) a. €ppaco. (érovs) tn "Addp K (B.C. 
230 or 229). Cf. 70 (a), introd. 6 lines. 

164. Mummy to. 16-3x8 cm. A demotic document of g lines, below 
which is KéBas Yuvteowiros (dpaxpal?) p., Teroolpe (et corr. from tos) Kat 
@oroptaim. Written about B.C. 230. 

165. Mummy io. 13:3x7-7cm. Receipt, similar to 108, from Apollonides 
to EtqdAeuos, acknowledging the payment of 11§ artabae of wheat 

(probably for @vAakituxdy and larpixdv) from rpdrvos on behalf of 

Diodorus, paid through Eupolis xwpo(ypaypare’s). Dated Phaophi 11 
of the 16th year (of Euergetes), i.e. B.C. 232 (231). Nearly complete. 
8 lines. 

166. Mummy Ag. 19x10-2cm. Duplicate of 119, written about B.C. 260. 
Nearly complete. 23 lines. On the verso part of another account. 

167. Mummy Ag. 4x7-6cm. Beginning of a letter from Demophon to 
Ptolemacus (cf. 51, introd.), of which the text is Anpopdév Hrodepaton 
xaipew. dvdyaye peta “Apputoros tod azo [rod ‘Iovetov du(Aakirov) Kal peta 
’AdeLdvdpov Tod ék Tadaw ra Hpwroyévous xal Taotpwvos mpéBara mdvra eis... 
Written about B.C. 245. 7 lines. 


168. Mummy Ag. 6x28cm. Another letter from Demophon to Ptole- 

maeus ordering him to send a herdsman; cf. 59. The text is Anyopav 
TIroAeuatwr xaipew. ‘Appito[w about 20 letters vélwovra ta Kapveddov tod 
Aoyevtod mpdBata ws dv dvayr[aus Tip emiotoAnv amdatetdor] eis “Okvptyyov 
mow pera prdaxis. ouvtétaxev yap Appdrvios 6 olxovdplos| bua TO[...... ] 
twa avTee 55 effaced letters [...... | kat rotro émms pi) Tapépyws Eorar, 
GAAa dpa huépar mapexe [aitov.] €ppwolo. Written across the fibres about 
B.C. 245. Incomplete. 6 lines. 

169. Mummy Ag. 6x14-:2 cm. Part of a letter to some officials with 

regard to the collection of money-taxes, mentioning olxovopodytos thy Karo 
totapxtav (sc. of the Oxyrhynchite nome). Dated Thoth 8 of the 31st (?) 
year (of Philadelphus) (B.C. 255 or 254). The writing is across the fibres. 
5 lines, of which about half is preserved. 

170. Mummy Ag. 15%x11-8cm. Conclusion of a letter, ending ¢povricov 


8& Sus pnKére ad TobT@y Tapakotoer Hur tva py avr pidtas x Opav [70d |yeOa. 
TovTOV yap ovrekev Tpd TOAACD ao ypapw. Eppwco. (Erovs) AO Owvd wy 
(Bae=247)-) 12 ines. 

Mummy A. 6-1x12:5 cm. Beginning of a contract written in B.C. 
243-2 (242-1), of which the text is BaowAevovtos Trodepatov rod HroAepatov 
kat Apouwdns OeGv "AdeApav (Erovs) € ef’ tepews "ApictoBovAov Tod Aroddtov 
"AdeEdvopov cal OeGv *AdeAddy Kal OeGy Evepyerov xavynpdpov *Apowdn|s 
DidaderApjov "layveas ths “Tro... [..... | pnvos Awiolv] év ‘HpaxiA€ovs more. 
This is the earliest instance of the association of the deol Evepyérar with 
Alexander and the 6eoi AdeAdot ; cf. 145, where the deol Evepyéra: are not 
yet mentioned in a papyrus of the 3rd year, and p. 369. The writing 
is across the fibres. 



OF all the problems connected with Ptolemaic Egypt few are more obscure 
than the relation of the Macedonian to the Egyptian calendar before the reign 
of Euergetes II, when the Macedonian year starting from Dius was finally 
equated to the Egyptian annus vagus of 365 days. So perplexing and 
apparently contradictory were the items of information gained from double 
dates on both calendars in papyri and inscriptions, that in 1898 Strack (AAezx. 
Mus. liii. pp. 399-431), when trying to introduce order into the chaos, took 
refuge in the extremely complicated hypothesis that two different sets of both 
Egyptian and Macedonian months with the same names were in current use. 
The evidence available to Strack was however very imperfect, since out of 
14 double dates within the period under review only 6 could be certainly 
assigned to particular years, and even in these 6 there were several doubtful 
readings of the figures. In 1903 J. Krall (Festschr. f. O. Hirschfeld, pp. 
113-122) was able to show from some fresh double dates in the Amherst papyri 
and a Berlin papyrus that an attempt was made during the early part of 
Philometor’s reign to equate the Macedonian to the Egyptian months; but 
though justly rejecting the views of Strack, he could make nothing of the 
relations of the Egyptian and Macedonian calendars before the time of 
Philometor. Now, however, with the large additional material provided by 
the Magdola, the new Petrie and the present Hibeh papyri together with 
unpublished Tebtunis papyri deciphered by Professor Smyly, who will col- 
laborate with us in the publication of them, the conditions of the problem 
are quite altered. Professor Smyly (Hermathena, 1905, pp. 393-8) has recently 
discussed the double dates in the reigns of Epiphanes and Philometor, and 
proved that for a period of at least 16 years (from the 24th year of Epiphanes 
to the 5th year of the joint reign of Philometor, Euergetes II, and 
Cleopatra, which = the 16th of Philometor) the Macedonian months starting 


from Dystrus were assimilated to the Egyptian months of the vague year 
starting from Thoth. Our object in the present appendix, in which we have 
had the benefit of Professor Smyly’s assistance, is to collect the evidence for the 
whole period from Alexander to Euergetes II, and to show that (1) it is 
unnecessary to suppose the existence of more than one Egyptian and, until 
the reign of Epiphanes, one Macedonian set of months in order to explain the 
double dates ; (2) the general tendency of the movements of the Macedonian year 
was to lose in relation to the Egyptian, i. e. to revolve more slowly, though some 
exceptions occur owing to the irregularity of intercalations; (3) the character 
and limits of the variations in the Macedonian year are now so far determined 
that from about the middle of Philadelphus’ reign to the 4th year of Philopator 
Macedonian months can, if the year of the reign is known, henceforth in most 
cases be converted into their approximate equivalents on the Egyptian calendar. 

While the truth of any general hypothesis with regard to the relations of 
the Macedonian and Egyptian calendars can only be thoroughly established 
by verification through new evidence, the first test which must be applied to 
it is its ability to form the extant double dates into an intelligible and more 
or less consistent series. To attempt to prove uniformity of relation between 
the two calendars would be of course out of the question ; our aim is to show that, 
in spite of the irregularities which must be conceded in any case, the trend of 
their relations to each other can now to a large extent be determined. Accord- 
ingly, in opposition to Strack’s hypothesis that there were throughout two sets of 
both Egyptian and Macedonian months, we start from the far more probable and 
simpler assumption that there was originally but one set of each. This being 
granted, the Egyptian calendar year of 12 months can be no other than the 
ordinary vague year of 365 days beginning with Thoth 1. Though the 
knowledge of the true solar year of 365% days was of extreme antiquity in 
Egypt, and an attempt was made in the reign of Euergetes I, as is shown by 
the Canopus Inscr., ll. 40 sqq., to substitute it for the vague year, there is 
no evidence that it ever penetrated, as Strack supposes, from the field of 
astronomy and religion into common use under the Ptolemies; and it is now 
almost universally admitted that the vague year continued its course uninter- 
rupted until the introduction of the Julian calendar into Egypt by Augustus 
in B.C. 23. With regard to the length of the Macedonian year nothing is 
definitely known. Following the ordinary view, which has much probability, 
that it was like other Greek calendar years lunar, we suppose it to have 
contained apart from intercalations 12 months of alternately 29 and 30 days, 
making 354 days in all. Recently some confirmation of this view has been 
obtained from its suitability to the double dates grouped together as no. (16) 


on our Table; cf. p. 345. In these Tubi 12 corresponds to Gorpiaeus 28, but 
Tubi 13 of the same year to Gorpiaeus 30. As Dittenberger has pointed out 
(Orient. Gr. Inscr. I. p. 650), it is probable that there is here no inconsistency, 
and that the last day of a month containing only 29 days was called the 
30th. Since Gorpiaeus is the 11th month of the Macedonian year, it is most 
likely that the months with 29 days were the Ist, 3rd, 5th, &c., rather than, 
as Strack supposes, the 2nd, 4th, 6th, &c. If the 29th day was omitted in 
months with 29 days, the mention of Peritius 29 in P. Petrie III. 21 (4). 8 and of 
Hyperberetaeus 29 in 146 indicates that these months (the 4th and 12th) had 
30 days. A year of 360 days seems to be implied by 28. 20-1; but this 
is not likely to be connected with the Macedonian year. 

Assuming therefore an Egyptian year of 365 days and a Macedonian year 
of 354, we have, at Professor Smyly’s suggestion, constructed a chronological 
table of correspondences, which shows the days of the Egyptian months on 
which the 1st of each Macedonian month would, apart from intercalations, fall 
in every instance of a double date by both calendars. This Table much 
more clearly than a mere list of the double dates exhibits the variations which 
took place between any two points, and illustrates at a glance both the general 
tendency of the Macedonian months to lose, i.e. fall later in the Egyptian year, 
and the occasional instances in which this tendency is reversed, and the Mace- 
donian year moves from one point to another more rapidly than the Egyptian. 
Since the Macedonian year was apart from intercalations 11 days shorter than 
the Egyptian, it would, if left to itself, gain this amount each year. The fact 
that on the contrary it tended to lose shows that intercalations were so frequent 
and so far in excess of the 11 days required to restore the balance between 
it and the Egyptian year, that the average length of the Macedonian year 
was more than 365 days. How the number of days to be intercalated was 
determined, and at what point or points they were inserted in the Macedonian 
year is involved in much obscurity. Papyri give surprisingly little help on 
the subject, the only reference to intercalation in the Macedonian calendar being 
in P. Petrie III. 22 (f). 2, where pnvols euBodiuov apparently indicates that 
a whole month had been inserted. But that intercalation of a whole month 
in the Macedonian calendar was not uncommon is shown by the story (Plutarch, 
Vit. Alex. 16) concerning Alexander who, in order to satisfy the religious 
objections of some of his soldiers to fighting in Daisius, inserted a second 
Artemisius. This, as Smyly remarks, seems to imply not only that the 
Macedonians inserted a whole month at a time, but that they called the 
intercalated month by the name of the preceding month; for unless such 
intercalation had been customary, Alexander could hardly have quieted the 


superstition of his followers. Unfortunately, however, the hypothesis of inter- 
calations of months of 29 or 30 days even at irregular intervals is not sufficient 
by itself to account for all the relations between the Egyptian and Macedonian 
months established by the evidence, and it is necessary to postulate the existence 
of other, at present unknown, disturbing elements which caused the Macedonian 
years to vary in length. 

The Macedonian year being so uncertain, it must be remembered that 
in each column of our Table the correspondences for which there is no direct 
evidence are only meant to be approximate, and that the chances of 
error owing to the presence of intercalations increase the further the supposed 
correspondences in the year move away from the known correspondence. The 
months in which the correspondence is directly attested are in each column of the 
Table distinguished from the others by being printed in italics. Where the reign is 
not actually given and cannot be inferred with complete certainty, it is enclosed 
in brackets. The queries after some of the months in italics mean either that 
the reading of the month is not certain, or that there are special grounds for 
suspecting an error in the correspondence. That errors have crept into the 
extant double dates is, considering the complicated system of two independent 
calendars, unfortunately only too likely; but the hypothesis of a mistake is, 
as a rule, only to be resorted to in the last extremity. In the case of no. (23), 
however, which almost certainly falls within the period of the first assimilation 
of the two calendars, a correction of the reading or interpretation of a group 
of hieroglyphic signs is necessary, and we have placed the wrong series of 
correspondences in brackets after the right ones. Where, asin nos. (2), (20), (30), 
and perhaps (4), double dates mention two months but only one day, which 
uniformly follows the Egyptian month, we have not assumed that the writer 
intended to imply that the number of the day of the Macedonian month was 
the same; cf. the discussion of no. (2). Still less is there any justification for 
supposing in the correspondences of Egyptian and Macedonian months in which 
no days are mentioned at all, nos. (3), (11), (12), and (15), that these months 
exactly coincided. That such correspondences were not intended to be more 
than approximate is in itself far more likely, and is indicated not only by the 
evidence of nos. (12) and (15) but still more clearly by P. Magd. 32, where 
Aatotov Alyuvmriwy 6€ ’Addvp occurs in 1. 4 of the petition, while in the docket 
on the verso Daisius 27 = Athur 29. Hence inthe Table the figures of the days 
are purposely omitted in connexion with those two classes of double dates. 

From the Egyptian calendar year of 12 months and 365 days beginning on 
Thoth 1 and the Macedonian year of 12 months and 354 days (with an 
uncertain number of intercalary days in addition) beginning on Dius I, must 


No. (1) (2) 
Reign . Alex. Philad. 
Year (6:6..323) 22 
Tius. 14 Meso. Thot. 
1 Apellaeus 8 Thot. Phao. 
1 Audnaeus 8 Phao. Athu. 
1 Peritius . 7 Athu. Choi. 
t Dystrus . 7 Choi. Tubi 
1 Xandicus 6 Tubi Mech. (?) 
1 Artemisius . 6 Mech. Pham. 
1 Daisius . 5 Pham. | Phar. 
1 Panemus 5 Phar(?)| Pach. 
1 Loius 4 Pach. Paun, 
1 Gorpiaeus . 4 Paun. Epei. 
1 Hyperberetaeus | 3 Epei. Meso. 

Reign . 


LT Diuse. 

1 Apellaeus 

1 Audnaeus 

1 Peritius . 

1 Dystrus . 

1 Xandicus 

1 Artemisius . 
1 Daisius . 

1 Panemus 

1 Loius 

1 Gorpiaeus . 
1 Hyperberetaeus 


25 Mech. 

24 Pham. 

24 Phar. 
23 Paun. 
22 Epei. 
22 Meso. 
16 Thot. 
16 Phao, 
15 Athu. 
15 Choi. 
14 Zubi 


















12 Phar. 
11 Pach. 
11 Paun. 
10 Epei. 
10 Meso. 
4 Thot. 
4 Phao. 
3 Athu.(?) 
3 Choi. 
2 Tubi 
2 Mech. 

1 Pham. 




22 Pham. 

21 Ehar: 
21 Pach. 
20 Paun. 
20 Epei. 

19 Meso. 
14 Thot. 
13 Phao. 
13 Athu. 
12 Choi. 

12 Tubi 

11 Mech. 



12 Athu. 
11 Choi. 
11 Tubi 

10 Mech. 
10 Pham. 

g Phar. 
9 Pach. 
8 Paun. 
8 Epei. 
4 Meso. 
2 Thot. 
1 Phao. 

(Philop. ?) 


18 Pach. 

17 Paun. 
17 Epei. 
16 Meso. 
11 Thot. 
10 Phao. 
1o Athu. 
9 Choi. 
g Tubi 
8 Mech. 
8 Pham. 
7 Phar. 


3 Athu. 
2 Choi. 
2 Tubi 

1 Mech. 
1 Pham. 
30 Pham, 

30 Phar. 
29 Pach. 
29 Paun. 
28 Epei. 

28 Meso. 

22 Thot. 



12 Choi. 
11 Tubs 
11 Mech. 
10 Pham. 
to Phar. 
9 Pach. 
g Paun. 
8 Epei. 
8 Meso. 
2 Thot. 
2 Phao. 
1 Athu. 



18 Thot. 

17 Phao. 
17 Athu. 
16 Choi. 
16 Tubi 
15 Mech. 
15 Pham. 
14 Phar. 
14 Pach. 
13 Paun. 
13 Epei. 
12 Meso. 


19 Tubi 

17 Phar. 
16 Paun. 
16 Epei. 

10 Thot. 
g Phao. 
g Athu. 
8 Choi. 


1 Pach, 
1 Paun. 
1 L per. 
t Meso, 
1 Thot. 
1 Phao. 
1 Athu. 
1 Choi. 
1 Tubi 
1 Mech. 
t Pham. 
1 Phar. 

18 Mech. 
18 Pham. 

15 Meso. 


18 Mech. 
17 Pham. 

17 Phar. 
16 Pach. 
16 Paun. 
15 Epei. 

15 Meso. 

9 Thot. 
g Phao. 
8 Athu. 
8 Chor. 
7 Tubi 




1 Pach, (1 Paun.) | 
1 Paun. (1 Epei.) | 
1 Epei. (1 Meso.) | 
1 Meso. (1 Thot.) | 
1 Thot. (1 Phao.) 
t Phao. (1 Athu.) 
t Athu. (1 Choi.) | 
1 Choi. (1 Tubi) 
1 Tubi (tr Mech.) | 
t Mech. (1 Pham.) 
1 Pham. (1 Phar.) | 
1 Phar. (1 Pach.) 




(10) (ee Gay | (14) 
Euerg. (Euerg.) | (Euerg.) | Euerg Euerg. Euerg. 
21 ? ? | 25 25 25-6 
6 Mech. Tubi Pham, 28 Mech. | (2 7) Mech. Mech. 
5 Pham. Mech, Phar, 27 Pham. | (26) Pham. | Pham. 
5 Phar. Pham. Pach. 27 Phar. | (26) Phar. Phar. 
4 Pach. Phar. Paun. | 26 Pach. | (25) Pach. Pach. 
4 Paun. Pach.(?)| Epe’. | 26 Paun. | (25) Paun. Paun. 
3 Epei. Paun. Meso. 25 Epei. (24) Epei. L per. 
3 Meso. Epei. Thot. | 25 Meso. | (24) Meso. | Meso. 
2 Epag. Meso. Phao. 19 Thot. | (18) Thot. Thot. 
| 27 Thot. | Thot. Athu. 19 Phao. | (18) Phao. Phao. 
| 26 Phao, | Phao, Choi. = 18 Athu. | (17) Athu. Athu, 
| 26 Athu. | Athu. | Tubi | 18 Chor | (17) Choi. | Choi. 
25 Choi. | Choi. | Mech. | 17 Tubi | (16) Tubi. | Tubi 
| 4) | ess) | (9) | Go | Gy | Ga 
Epiph. | Philom, (Philom.) | Philom. (Philom.?) | Euerg. II. 
24 2, 5, 8, 16 18 | 24 | 26 | 53 
t Pach. | 1 Pach. | 24 Pach. | Phar. | 3 Pach. | r Thot. | 
| 1 Paun. | 1 Paun. | 23 Paun. | Pach. | > Paun. | & Phao. | 
1 Epei. | 1 Epei. 23 Epei. | Paun. 2 Epei. 1 Athu. | 
| * Meso. | 1 Meso. | 22 Afeso. | Eper.(?)| 2 Meso. | 1 Choi. 
| 1 Thot. | 1 Thot. | 17 Thot. | Meso. 1 Epag. | 1 Tubi 
| x Phao. | 1 Phao. | 16 Phao. | Thot. | 25 Thot. | 1 Mech 
r Athu. | 1 A‘. | 16 Athu. Phao. | 25 Phao. | 1 Pham 
| x Choi. 1 Choi. 15 Choi. | Athu. | 24 Athu. for-Phar;. | 
1 Tubi 1 Tubi 15 Tubi | Choi. 24 Choi. | 1 Pach 
t Mech, | 1 Afech. 14 Mech.| Tubi | 23 Tubi | x Paun. | 
1 Pham. | 1 Pham. 14 Pham.| Mech. | 23 Mech. | 1 Epei. | 
| 1 Phar. | 1 Phar. 13 Phar. | Pham. (22 Pham. | 1 Meso. | 



be carefully distinguished the years of the king's reign, which were with the 
apparent exception of the rare use of eras (cf. 84 (6)) the only kind of years 
employed for dating purposes. It has been shown by Professor Smyly (Her- 
mathena, X. Xxv. p. 432) from two Petrie papyri of Euergetes I’s reign dated 
(€rovs) ta @s 8 ab zpdcodor (érovs) «8 (cf. p. 359) that at any rate in the earlier 
Ptolemaic period two different systems of reckoning the king’s years were in 
vogue. All that is quite certain about them is that one was employed for 
revenue purposes (@s at mpdaodo.), and that when the two systems occur together 
the figure of the revenue year was sometimes larger by one than the figure 
of the other, which we may call the ‘regnal, year. Smyly is, we think, right 
in identifying the ‘revenue’ year with the Egyptian vague year of 365 days 
beginning with Thoth 1, the balance of days between the king’s accession and the 
following Thoth 1 being reckoned, in accordance with ancient custom, as his 1st 
year. The starting-point and length of the ‘ regnal’ year are still quite uncertain, 
and in addition to the revenue and regnal years found in connexion with the 
Egyptian months there may have been yet another system of reckoning the 
king’s years employed in connexion with the Macedonian months. These 
intricate questions are discussed in App. ii. 

How far the revenue year penetrated into common use in the third and 
second centuries B.C. is a question which at present cannot be decided. It is 
noteworthy that even in papyri concerning the revenue administration the revenue 
year is by no means always found (cf. pp. 360-1); and it is probable that, 
down to the reign of Epiphanes at any rate, the regnal year was more often 
employed in dating ordinary documents than the revenue year. There is not 
a single instance among the dates in our Table in which the king’s year is known 
for certain to be a revenue year ; and, since only nos. (3), (4), (6) and (9) occur 
in documents concerned with the revenues, the presumption with regard to the 
third century B.C. instances is that in most or possibly even all of them either 
the regnal or some kind of Macedonian year is meant by the year of the reigning 
sovereign. This distinction of the regnal from the revenue year, however, does 
not greatly affect our Table except in the case of dates such as (5) and (6), 
(13), (14) and (16); (17), and (18), which are close together; but owing to 
the inevitable complications which surround the conversion of Ptolemaic dates 
into dates on the Julian calendar (cf. p. 367), we have generally avoided converting 
the dates in our Table into years B.C. except where the question is of particular 


Notes on the Table of Correspondences. 

(1) The day of Alexander's death, which took place in B.C. 323, is given 
by Aristobulus af. Plutarch, Vzta Alex. 75 as Daisius 30, by the royal epnpepises 
(Plutarch, of. cit. 76) as Daisius 28 (rpitn Oivovros), and by Cod. A of Pseudo- 
Callisthenes (Miiller, Avhang zu Arrian, 151) as Pharmouthi 4; cf. Strack’s note 
(Rhein. Mus. liii. pp. 416-7). Apart from the questions whether these dates 
are to be trusted, and how the two conflicting statements found in Plutarch are 
to be reconciled, it is quite possible that on the establishment of the Ptolemaic 
regime some modifications were introduced into the Macedonian calendar, and 
since B.C. 323 falls outside the period with which we are immediately concerned, 
there is no need to bring this double date into line with those following. But 
it is worth noting that the correspondence of the two calendars in B.C. 323, which 
results from the equation of Daisius 30 to Pharmouthi 4, is only different by 
two months from their correspondence 65 years later found in (3); and the 
hypothesis that the Macedonian year had in the interval moved the whole way 
round the Egyptian year (as it nearly does between the 27th year of Philadelphus 
and the gth of Epiphanes) is vetoed by 84 (a). Line 6 of that papyrus, written 
about B.C. 300, indicates that Panemus, the month in which a payment is to 
be made from the new corn-harvest, then corresponded to Pharmouthi, Pachon 
or Pauni, an equation which agrees remarkably closely with the correspondences 
of Panemus with Pharmouthi in B.C. 323, and with Pauni and Epeiph in the latter 
part of Philadelphus’ reign, as shown by nos. (3), and (4); cf. 86. 3, note. 
It is fairly certain that between B.C. 300 and the middle of Philadelphus’ reign 
the general tendency of the Macedonian months to fall later in the Egyptian 
year was less marked than in the rest of the third century B.C., and that Soter 
was more successful than the next three Ptolemies in making the Macedonian 
year approximately keep pace with the Egyptian. Hence it is not unreasonable 
to suppose that between B.C. 323 and 300 the average length of the Macedonian 
year was also maintained at approximately 365 days, though for the reasons 
stated above we do not wish to lay any stress on the double dates of Alexander’s 

(2) 92.6 payvds Zavdixlo|§ Alyuariwy pnivd|s Mex[ip| reroaperxaidexarye in the 

g2nd year of Philadelphus. The decipherment of the Egyptian month is very 

doubtful (cf. note ad /oc.), but in view of the correspondence of Xandicus with 

Phamenoth only 5 years later Mecheir would be expected, and no satisfactory 

alternative reading suggests itself. Me(colp7) zu] in place of jm[vd|s Mex{(p] would 

necessitate the inference that in these 5 years the Macedonian year gained or lost as 
iL, D 


much as 6 months in relation to the Egyptian, a change far more rapid than even 
that which took place in the reign of Philopator; cf. nos. (18) and (21). But not 
much reliance can be placed upon this double date until fresh evidence is 
discovered for the relation of the two calendars about the 22nd year. The 
omission of the number of the day of the Macedonian month probably does not 
indicate that it was the same as that of the Egyptian month, i.e. the 14th. The 
day of the month is often omitted in the dates of early Ptolemaic contracts, 
e.g. 84 (2) and 85; and in most of the instances in which the day is only given 
once, nos. (2) and perhaps (4), and the undeciphered protocol of the papyrus 
discussed in connexion with nos. (11) and (15), there is no independent reason 
for thinking the days of the two months coincided. It is also significant that 
in nos, (24)-(28), when the two calendars were temporarily assimilated and the 
days of the Macedonian and Egyptian months coincided throughout the year, 
the day of the Macedonian month as well as that of the Egyptian is given in 
each of those five instances. Even after the final assimilation of the two 
calendars in the reign of Euergetes II there is as yet no example earlier 
than the reign of Ptolemy Alexander (P. Leyden O) of a single mention of the 
day doing duty for both the Macedonian and Egyptian months. With regard 
to (30) there is some reason for supposing that the day applies to both months, 
though the inference is far from certain. The only case in which there are 
really strong grounds for thinking that the number of the day of the Macedonian 
month, though not stated, coincided with that of the Egyptian month is 
no. (20), which is almost certainly a remarkably early instance of the use 
of the assimilated Macedonian calendar introduced by Philopator or Epiphanes. 
But it would be highly unsafe to generalize from these two examples, which 
both belong to a period when as regards the Macedonian calendar the conditions 
were quite different from those which prevailed, so far as is known, until after 
the 4th year of Philopator. 

(3) Rev. Laws lvii. 4-5 = lix. 3-4 pnvis Topmiatov rod [. .. . Aijyumrlov 
Mecopy ; cf. Fr. 6 (c). g-10, where, as Wilcken (Os¢. I. p. 782) suggests, pnvds 
Avo[tpov was probably equated in the same way to pyvos Mexip. The year in 
which Rev. Laws were written was the 27th of Philadelphus, and probably 
that is the year to which these double dates refer (it was most likely stated in 
the lacuna after Topmiatov rod ; but possibly in the case of one or both of them 
the 28th year may be meant). From the fact that Gorpiaeus and Dystrus 
are equated to Mesore and Mecheir respectively it must not be inferred that 
the correspondence was exact, for nos. (12) and (15) clearly show that when the 
days are omitted the equations are only approximate, and it is very unlikely 
that if the days in the two calendars at this period were the same in one month, 


they would continue to be precisely the same several months later. To suppose 
that an exact correspondence was maintained throughout a whole year before 
the first assimilation of the two calendars introduced in the time of Philopator or 
Epiphanes is so much at variance with the evidence as to be out of the question. 

(4) P. Leyden I. 379, a docket on a demotic contract dated in Tubi of the 
29th year of Philadelphus, where |. (érovs) xO Mepiriov (€rovs) x6 TiS (so Smyly 
from a photograph). The date is generally quoted incorrectly as (érovs) x0 
Tlepitiov x0 Tip. B, but the figure, if any, after TéS. is wholly uncertain, and 
between Ilepiriov and xé the sign for (€rovs) is repeated. The day of the month 
was therefore not given more than once, if at all, so that the only safe inference 
to be drawn is that Peritius approximately corresponded to Tubi in the 29th 
year. This gives the same equation as that found in (3) for the 27th, and shows 
that no considerable change in the relation of the two calendars had taken place 
in the interval. 

(5) 146 (€rovs) de ‘“YrepBeperaiov xO Uialézm x0, the reign being certainly that 
of Philadelphus. In the interval of 6 years between this and (4) the Macedonian 
year had lost in reference to the Egyptian to the extent of a number of days 
which is not likely to exceed 30, since in the 2gth year Hyperberetaeus probably 
coincided in part with Thoth. 

(6) 77. 8 (€rovs) A> "Apteyioiov xy Ilaxyov «8, the reign being certainly that of 
Philadelphus. This date is particularly instructive, because it is the earliest 
of several exceptions to the general tendency of the Macedonian year to revolve 
at a slower rate than the Egyptian. In the interval between (5) and (6), which 
may be either 7 months or I year and 7 months or 2 years and 7 months (the 
uncertainties with regard to the use of regnal and revenue years have to be reckoned 
with ; cf. App. ii), the Macedonian year had gained about g days at the expense 
of the Egyptian. This circumstance fits in very well with the view (cf. p. 334) 
that the Macedonian year, when not subjected to intercalation, was shorter 
by some days than the Egyptian. If the Macedonian year when left to itself 
contained 365-9 = 356 days, the absence of any intercalation at all between 
the dates of (5) and (6) might, on the assumption that those documents were 
written in successive Macedonian years, bring about the correspondence found 
in (6); on the supposition, which is on general grounds more probable, that 
it contained 354 days, there remains a difference of two days (II—9 = 2) to be 
accounted for by intercalation in the Macedonian year or otherwise. 

(6 a) Unpublished Tebtunis papyrus (Mummy 8) (2rovs) 4 Topmatov 8 [Plaéqu 
¢. This double date was deciphered by Smyly too late to be included in our 
Table. The reign is no doubt that of Euergetes, for the correspondence implied 
by (6 a) only differs by four days from that implied by (7), which was written in 


his oth year. In the 8th year of Euergetes therefore the approximate dates for 
the beginnings of the Macedonian months are Dius 1=Choiak 16; Apellaeus 1= 
Tubi 15; Audnaeus 1=Mecheir 15; Peritius 1=Phamenoth 14; Dystrus 1= 
Pharmouthi 14; Xandicus 1=Pachon 13; Artemisius 1=Pauni 13; Daisius 
1=Epeiph 12; Panemus 1=Mesore 12; Loius 1=Thoth 6; Gorpiaeus 1= 
Phaophi 6; Hyperberetaeus 1=Athur 5. In the interval of 10 years between 
(6) and (6a) the Macedonian year had lost about 43 days, which indicates 
that the intercalations had been larger than those in the period before the 
middle of Philadelphus’ reign, but much smaller than those in the next 7 years 
of Euergetes; cf. (1) and (9). 

(7) Canopus Inscr. 1. 3 pnvos ’ AmreAXalov eBdoun. Alyumtiov 6€ ToS. éemtakat- 
dexatme in the oth year of Euergetes. As in the case of (5) and (6), which 
are separated only by a short interval, the Macedonian year had gained 9 days 
instead of losing, so here a comparison of (7) with (6 a) shows that the Macedonian 
year had gained 4 days in the interval, which may be 3 months, 1 year and 
3 months, or 2 years and 3 months. 

(8) P. Petrie I. 24 (1) Ajatctov ky Owvd B. As will be seen from the Table, 
the most suitable place for this third century date is between the 1oth and 15th 
years of Euergetes; but between the 16th year and the 21st the Macedonian 
year regained some of the days which it had lost, and if the correspondence 
implied by (11) ever took place and occurred between the 16th and 25th years, 
(8) may also belong to that period. This is however less probable; cf. our 
remarks on (11). 

(9) P. Petrie IIT. 53 (s). 13-4 (€rovs) t¢ Topmatov 6 Xoiax wa. The reign is 
probably that of Euergetes. In the 7 years therefore which had elapsed between 
(7) and (9) the Macedonian year had lost 66 days. 

(10) P. Petrie III. 21 (g). 11 (€rovs) xa Avorploly is Tat 10, the reign being 
certainly that of Euergetes. The reading of the second figure of the year is 
not certain. It is more like 8, but inl. 11 of the fragmentary second copy 
of 21 (g) xa is clear, so that it is safer to adopt the 21st year, especially as the 
figures of the reign at the beginning of the papyrus in |. 1 are probably x, not 
xe, and the date in |. 11 occurs in a quotation from an older document. In 
the interval of about 5 years between (g) and (10) the Macedonian years instead 
of losing had gained 12 days. This marked exception to their usual tendency 
is more striking than the three similar instances in nos. (6), (7), and (16), which 
are separated by probably less than two years from nos. (5), (6a), and (14) re- 

(11) In Fr. (a) of an unpublished Tebtunis papyrus (Mummy 107), partly 
deciphered by Professor Smyly, Avorpov Alyuntiwy Tayo {v)s occurs in a contract. 


This long papyrus is in several pieces, of which the order is uncertain. On the 
recto are a series of copies or abstracts of contracts, each headed by the number 
of the day and in some cases by the month, but with no statement of the year. 
In Fr. (0) is an agreement for a loan of wheat and money in which the sentence 
is anoddoe év ZavdixGt Alyutriwy 5€ Mecopy occurs. The same correspondence 
as Xandicus = Mesore is also implied by év pvt Adjor|par Alyatioy b€ "Exeid 
in a contract in Fr. (c), and by [epe:riéov Madv{c found in Fr. (d). These three 
equations form our no. (12), and are different by two months from the corre- 
spondence found in (11). On the verso of Fr. (c) is a lease dated in the 25th 
year of Euergetes, in the protocol of which the months were given in both 
calendars but have not yet been deciphered, the day being rerpad. xal eixdd:, 
while one of the provisions of the contract is that the rent shall be paid év pyvi 
Zavdixé. Aiyvariwr) d€ “Enefp (no. (15) of the Table). Probably this clause 
refers to the 26th year, not to the 25th, since in the preceding line Zavd:kod 
Aiyurtioy 6€ ’Eneid rod extov kal eixoorod érovs occurs. The equation of Xandicus 
to Epeiph in the 26th year causes no particular difficulty ; cf. our remarks on 
(15). But the question of the period to which the several equations on the 
recto of the papyrus, Dystrus = Pachon, our no. (11), and Dystrus = Epeiph, 
our no. (12), belong is more obscure, and is complicated by the fact that, as 
in (15), the correspondences are probably anticipatory. The circumstance that 
the series of contracts in which they are found is dated only by days of the 
month suggests that these documents were drawn up at no distant time from 
each other, and seeing that a lease written in the 25th year occurs on the verso, 
the dates to which the documents on the recto refer are probably not later 
than that year. There would be no difficulty in assigning no. (12) by itself 
to about the 25th year, since, though Dystrus then apparently began in Pauni, 
the greater part of it coincided with Epeiph, so that it might be equated to 
either Pauni or Epeiph. On the other hand no. (11), in which the general 
correspondence of the months in the two calendars is the same as that implied 
by no, (8), is most conveniently placed, like no. (8), between the gth and 16th 
years of Euergetes; but in that case, if (12) belongs to the 25th year, there 
is a difference of several years between the dates of the contracts on the recto 
of the papyrus, which is not at all a satisfactory hypothesis. The inconsistency 
of 2 months between the equations in nos. (11) and (12) can however only be 
explained in two other ways. One of the two correspondences may be wrong 
(which would be certainly (11), an equation attested by only one instance 
against three for (12)); or the interval between (11) and (12) may be quite 
short, but in the course of it an intercalation of about 60 days was introduced 
into the Macedonian year in addition to the number of days (11, as we suppose) 


necessary to make up the difference between the Macedonian and Egyptian 
year. Seeing that in both (11) and (12) the correspondences are probably 
approximate and anticipatory and need not have actually taken place, there 
is more justification than usual for supposing a miscalculation in one of them. 
But considering the irregularities of the Macedonian calendar, the possibility 
of a sudden large intercalation cannot be excluded ; and provisionally (11) and 
(12) may be assigned to some year or years between the gth and 25th of Euergetes. 
The period from the gth to the 21st years would not be so appropriate 
as that from the 21st to the 25th, because the latter period suits (12), which 
has better evidence than (11), and less disturbance is caused by placing (11) 
after (10) than by placing (12) before (10). The correspondences implied by 
(11) and (12) being in any case approximate are quite consistent with those 
found in (10) and (13) respectively ; the whole difficulty is caused by the apparent 
shortness of the interval between (11) and (12) and the uncertainty as to which 
of the two is the earlier. 

(12) Unpublished Tebtunis papyrus (Mummy 107), Fr. (4) Zavduxou Aiyuatiov 
de Meoopy, confirmed by two other correspondences ; cf. (11). 

(13) P. Magd. 2, 4 and 6 (cf. Deuxiéme Série, p. 205) (€rovs) ce Awti)ov Ke 
Xotax wy, the reign being certainly that of Euergetes, since Diophanes is 
mentioned ; cf. (14). The Macedonian years had thus in the 4 years’ interval 
between (10) and (13) resumed their tendency to lose, the amount of the loss 
being 22 days, though if (11) and (12) are rightly placed between (10) and (13) 
and the correspondence implied by (11) is trustworthy (which is far from certain), 
some rapid changes seem to have taken place in the interval; cf. our remarks 
on (11). The relation of the calendars is only different by the trifling amount 
of one day from that found in (14). But what is the interval between (13) 
and (14), and which of the two is the earlier? Both papyri were written in the 
a5th year, and of course if this year was in both cases the revenue year 
which began on Thoth 1, the answer would be easy, viz. that (13), which 
was written in Choiak, was 4 months earlier than (14), which was written 
in Pharmouthi. But unfortunately since neither papyrus is concerned with 
revenues, the presumption is that the 25th year is in both cases regnal, or at any 
rate not a revenue year. The question of the priority of (13) or (14) will then 
depend upon the starting-point of the 25th regnal year. If it was Thoth 1, (13) 
is still 4 months earlier than (14) ; if it was Dius 1 or Dius 25, the probable date 
of Euergetes’ accession (cf. p. 364), (14) being written in Apellaeus is 8 months 
older than (13) which was written in Loius. And since the starting-point of the 
25th regnal year is not confined to those alternatives, it is wholly uncertain 
whether (13) or (14) is the earlier. 


(14) P. Petrie II. 2. (2) (=III. 28 (4)), verso 1 (erous) xe ’AmeAAalov 1a Pappodd. 
>; cf. II. 2. (3) (= III. 28 (c)), verso 1 (€rous) ke "AmeAAaiov 1a Papyodo. ¢. The 
reigning sovereign was supposed by Mahaffy to be Philadelphus, by Grenfell 
(Rev. Laws, p. 162), and P. M. Meyer (Heerwesen, p. 51) to be Euergetes I, by 
Strack (Rhein. Mus., 1. c.) to be Epiphanes. The Magdola papyri frequently 
mention the same strategus, Diophanes, who occurs in P. Petrie II. 2. (2) and (3), 
and he appears in a papyrus (Dewxieéme Série, no. 23, p. 174; cf. p. 205) in 
which the 26th year is clearly shown to be the last of a reign, and which 
therefore leaves no doubt that the 25th and 26th years in connexion with 
Diophanes refer to Euergetes I and the 1st and 4th years to Philopator. 
It is possible that (14) is really earlier than (13) ; see above. 

(15) Unpublished Tebtunis papyrus (Mummy 107, Fr. (c), verso) ; cf. no. (11). 
The equation Zavdico.. .. "Exetp refers to the 26th year, but the contract in 
which it occurs was written in the 25th year, the day of the month in the 
protocol being given only once, and the names of both months being illegible. 
If the person who drew up the contract expected Xandicus to correspond 
exactly with Epeiph, his anticipation was almost certainly not fulfilled, for 
the dates in (13), (14), and (16), which are very close to (15), combine to indicate 
that Xandicus in both the 25th and 26th years began after Epeiph 20; it is 
therefore probable that the equation of Xandicus to Epeiph was not intended 
to be more than approximate. The equation would become more natural if 
we could infer from the absence of the day of the Macedonian month in the 
protocol that it was the same as that of the Egyptian. But the evidence does 
not justify that inference; cf. our remarks on (2). 

(16) P. Magd. 16, 20-3, and 33 (érovs) a Topmaiov xn Tdi 18 and P. Magd. 14, 
15, 18, 19, 25, and 34 (érovs) a Topmatov A TéBi wy, the reign being certainly that 
of Philopator ; cf. nos. (13) and (14). The apparent discrepancy of a day in 
these two series of double dates is probably due to the fact that Gorpiaeus 
contained only 29 days and that the last day of the month was called the 3oth ; 
cf. p. 334. Comparing (16) with (13) and (14) the Macedonian year has, instead 
of losing, gained 2 or 3 days upon the Egyptian, a phenomenon which con- 
sidering that the interval is in any case very short is not surprising; cf. the 
g days’ difference in the calendars implied by (5) and (6). The question of 
the interval between (14) and (16) is embarrassed, as usual, by complications 
caused by the two systems of reckoning the king’s years; cf. App. ii. Jouguet 
and Lefebvre (P. Magd. Deuxiéme Série, p. 205) follow the ordinary practice 
of editors in regarding (érovs) a as the balance between Philopator’s accession 
and the following Thoth 1, and hence naturally infer that Philopator came to 
the throne before Tubi 12, i.e. Feb. 26, B.C. 221. But, as in the case of (13) and 


(14), the presumption is rather that the regnal not the revenue year is meant 
by (érovs) a, and if so we cannot, owing to the uncertainty concerning the 
starting-point and length of Philopator’s Ist regnal year, attribute Td: 18 to B. C. 
221 rather than to B.C. 220. Some stronger evidence for determining the date 
of Philopator’s accession would now seem to be available in P.. Petrie III. 141, 
which indicates that this event took place after Choiak of Euergetes’ 25th 
regnal year and not later than the following Pauni; cf. p. 363. The interval 
between (13) and (16) may be 1 month or 13 months or even 2 years and 
1 month; that between (14) and (16) 9 months or I year and g months or 
even 2 years and g months. 

(17) P. Magd. 7, 8, 13, and 26-32 (érovs) 6 Aatotov x¢ ’Addp xO, the reign 
being certainly Philopator’s; cf. (14). In the interval of about 3 years 
between (16) and (17) the Macedonian year had apparently lost 47 days. 
There is, however, a notable inconsistency between the double dates in (17) 
and (18) which both belong to the 4th year, and the correctness of the figures 
x0 in (17) is open to doubt; cf. (18). 

(18) P. Magd. 12. 14 and verso 1, and 39. verso 1, where in all three cases I. 
(rovs) 5 Alov y Payered xd (6 corr. from 7), the originals having been revised by 
Smyly and Grenfell. As in the case of (13) and (14), so with regard to (17) and 
(18) it is uncertain not only what is the interval between the pair but which of 
the two dates is the earlier. Assuming that the ‘4th year’ is the same in both 
instances, which is probable in any case, since the double dates in the Magdola 
papyri were written in the same office, (18) may be either about 4 months later 
than (17) or about 8 months earlier, according to the day on which the 4th year 
is supposed to have begun. If (17) comes before (18) the Macedonian year 
would seem to have gained 20 days in about 4 months; if (18) precedes (17) it 
would seem to have lost 20 days in about 8 months. To account for so large a 
discrepancy between the relations of the two calendars in what is, apparently, 
so short an interval is very difficult; and it is therefore tempting, as Smyly 
suggests, to make (17) consistent with (18) by supposing that ‘“A@dp «dé 
in (17) is an error for ’A@dp 0, due perhaps to the presence of x in the number 
of the Macedonian month, or else to suppose an error in (18) where the figures 
of the Egyptian month have certainly been altered. But there are no less than 
ten instances of "A@dip «0, and though they are all written by the same 
person, the repetition of the date goes some way to confirm its correctness. 
Moreover, although with so complicated a system of reckoning as that 
which prevailed before the assimilation of the Macedonian to the Egyptian 
year the extant double dates are unlikely to be free from errors, the evidence 
is still too imperfect and the irregularities of the Macedonian calendar too 

numerous to make the supposition of error a satisfactory explanation of in- 

(19) Inscr. on a vase found at Alexandria, Nerutsos, Rev. Arch. 1887, p. 62, 
(e€rous) 0 “YzepBeperaiov a Pappod. ¢< The day of the Macedonian month has 
been read as both a and A; we adopt a, which Strack prefers. The reigning 
sovereign was considered to be Euergetes by Nerutsos, Philadelphus by 
Merriam (Amer. Fourn. of Arch. i. p. 22), Wilcken (Gott. gel. Anz. 1895, 
p. 142), and Strack, partly on the ground that the Delphic Soteria mentioned 
in another inscription of the same year found with this one were instituted 
shortly before the gth year of Philadelphus, partly because that festival took 
place in every 4th year of an Olympiad (Dittenberger, Sy//oge! 149 and 150), 
and the gth years of Euergetes and Philopator were considered not to be the 
4th years of an Olympiad, while in the gth year of Epiphanes, which was, the 
relation of the two calendars was shown by the Rosetta Inscr. to be different. 
The reign of Euergetes may now be dismissed as quite unsuitable, but there 
are good reasons for attributing the inscription to Philopator or Epiphanes 
rather than to Philadelphus. The second argument in favour of Philadelphus 
proceeds on the assumption, which until recently was unquestioned, that this 
gth year began on Thoth 1, and was what is now known as a revenue year. 
It is true that the 9th revenue year of Philopator, i.e. according to the ordinary 
reckoning B. C. 214-3, was not the 4th of an Olympiad, but his gth regnal year, 
which probably corresponded in the main to his 1oth revenue yéar, i.e. B.C. 
213-2 (cf. p. 367), fulfils,as Smyly remarks, the required condition. The other 
argument for attributing the inscription to Philadelphus’ reign, the circumstance 
that the Soteria at Delphi were instituted shortly before the gth year of Phila- 
delphus, is not at all conclusive, and the choice between the reigns of Philadelphus 
and Philopator must be decided mainly by the double date. In the absence of 
any direct and certain evidence of the relation of the calendars before the 27th 
year of Philadelphus, any correspondence is possible in his 9th year ; but if (19) is 
placed in that reign it is necessary to infer that the Macedonian year lost over 
4 months in the 18 years’ interval between it and (3). This would imply more 
extensive intercalation than is attested for any other period of 18 years before the 
reign of Philopator, and moreover such evidence as we possess with regard to the 
movement of the Macedonian year before the 27th year of Philadelphus indicates 
that its changes in regard to the Egyptian were gradual and comparatively 
slow ; cf. nos. (1) and (2). On the other hand a comparison of (17) or (18) with 
(21) suggests that in Philopator’s reign the Macedonian year changed very quickly 
its relation to the Egyptian, and that the relation of the two calendars found 
in (19), when Dius 1 fell in the middle of Pachon, is one which is extremely 


suitable as an intervening stage between the 4th year of Philopator when 
Dius 1 fell in Phamenoth or Pharmouthi and the 9th of Epiphanes when it 
fell in Thoth. Hence, if the choice lies between Philadelphus and Philopator, . 
we prefer to regard (19) as written in the 9th regnal year of Philopator on 
May 19, B.C. 212, and to suppose that in the 5 years’ interval between (19) 
and (18) the Macedonian year lost 56 days, or, comparing (17) with (19), 36 days. 
But the great divergence in the relation of the two calendars indicated by (19) 
and the Rosetta Inscr., our no. (21), respectively is no longer a sufficient reason 
for refusing to attribute (19) to the 9th year of Epiphanes, since the discovery of 
(20); for in that surprising double date of the 4th year of Epiphanes the relation 
of the Egyptian to the Macedonian calendar is nearly identical with that shown 
by (19). (20) is best explained (see below) on the view that the first attempt 
to reform the Macedonian calendar in Egypt by equating Dystrus to Thoth 
and the other months to correspond had then already been made, although 
the omission of the number of the day in the case of the Macedonian month 
prevents us from being absolutely certain that (20) is an example of the 
assimilated Macedonian calendar. From the 4th to the gth years of Epiphanes, 
therefore, the reformed and unreformed Macedonian years seem to have been 
running side by side ; and if in (19) the days of the Macedonian and Egyptian 
months were the same there would be no difficulty in assigning it to the 9th 
year of Epiphanes, and treating it as an example of the reformed calendar, while 
in the Rosetta Inscr. the Macedonian month is given on the unreformed 
calendar. There is, as stated above, a doubt about the reading of the figure of 
the Macedonian month in (19), but it seems unlikely to be the same as the 
figure of the Egyptian month; and since to attribute (19) to the reign of 
Epiphanes without at the same time supposing that the Macedonian month is on 
the reformed calendar would produce much complication, the reign of Philopator 
is on. the whole the most suitable. 

(20) Unpublished Tebtunis papyrus (Mummy 6) BaowAevortos TroAcuatou Tod 
IIroAeuaiov kat "Apowdns Oedv PiroTatdpwv érovs teTdptrov ... pyvds Addvaiov 
Alyunrioy 6€ “Exelp [welvrexaidexarn.. It is unfortunate that in this very remark- 
able double date the omission of the number of the day in connexion with the 
Macedonian month introduces a slight element of uncertainty into the precise 
relation of the calendars implied. But in view of the complete coincidence of 
Audnaeus with Epeiph on the assimilated Macedonian calendar, which had 
certainly been introduced by the 24th year of Epiphanes (cf. (24)), and probably 
by the 18th year (cf. (22)), there is not much doubt that in (20) [7e|vrexadexarne 
applies to both months, not merely to the Egyptian, in spite of the fact that in 
the earlier instances where the figure of the day is only stated once a similar 


inference is unjustifiable; cf. our remarks on (2). This being granted, two 
conclusions are almost inevitable: firstly, the date at which the Macedonian 
calendar was first assimilated to the Egyptian by equating Dystrus to Thoth and 
the other months to correspond must now be put back into the period preceding 
the 4th year of Epiphanes, which is the date of (20) ; secondly, on account of the 
wholly different relation of the Macedonian and Egyptian months found in the 
Rosetta Inscr., which is 5 years later than (20), the reformed and unreformed 
Macedonian calendars must for some years, perhaps throughout the whole period 
of the first assimilation, have run on concurrently. These conclusions present no 
special difficulty, for the fact that the earlier identification of the two calendars 
ultimately failed and irregularities again occur in the reign of Philometor shows 
that the obstacles to a reform of the Macedonian calendar were very serious ; 
and the new system according to which the Macedonian months from Dystrus to 
Peritius became mere equivalents of the Egyptian months from Thoth to Mesore 
may well have failed to command universal acceptance, and to deprive even 
temporarily the old Macedonian year of independent existence. In any case this 
explanation of (20) as an example of the assimilated calendar, a view which is 
based on the assumption that [wevtexavdexdry. applies to both months, is more 
satisfactory than the rival hypothesis that the figures were really different or, 
if identical in Audnaeus-Epeiph, were yet different in the other months. If that were 
the case, not only must the nearness of the relation of the two months in (20) to 
their relation under the assimilated calendar be regarded as a mere accident, but 
since there would no longer be any reason for supposing that the earlier reform 
of the calendar was introduced before the date of the Rosetta Inscr., it would 
be necessary to maintain that in the interval of about 5 years between (20) 
and (21) Dius 1 moved on from some date in Pachon to the middle of Thoth, 
ie. that the Macedonian year had lost more than 100 days. That in the 
interval of about 21 years between the 4th year of Philopator, as illustrated by 
(18), and the 9th year of Epiphanes, to which (21) belongs, the Macedonian year 
shifted its position in relation to the Egyptian to an extraordinary extent must 
be admitted on any theory ; for the difference between the approximate dates of 
Dius 1 at the beginning and end of that period amounts to no less than 181 days, 
of which 125 have to be accounted for in the last 16 years of it, if (19) is 
correctly dated by us; cf. our remarks on (21). But to suppose a difference 
exceeding 100 days in the relation of the two calendars within about 5 years 
would imply a far graver disturbance than can be traced in the same length of 
time at any other point during the third and second centuries B.c. The choice 
of a month in the middle of the old Macedonian year instead of Dius to serve as 
the equivalent of Thoth is remarkable. Perhaps when the two calendars were 


identified Dystrus nearly or quite coincided with Thoth. If so, the change 
would seem to have been introduced not long after the 4th year of Philopator, 
when, as is shown by (17) and (18), Dystrus fell near the end of the Egyptian 
year. In the gth year of Philopator, if (19) is to be attributed to his reign, 
Dystrus began about Thoth 11. It is possible, though not at all likely, that (22), 
which is an example of the assimilated calendar, belongs to the 18th year of 
Philopator. But the earlier limit of the period within which the assimilation 
took place cannot at present be fixed more definitely than Philopator’s 4th year, 
before which there is no evidence of any attempt to equate the Macedonian to the 
Egyptian months. The later limit of the period is, we think, fixed by (20) at the 
4th year of Epiphanes. 

(21) Rosetta Inscr. ll. 4-6 érovs evadrov (of Epiphanes) pnvds Zavéixod rerpdde 
Alyuntiov 6€ Mexeip dxrwxadexarnt. This double date shows that, despite the 
efforts of the government to reform the calendar by equating the Macedonian 
months to the Egyptian, the old Macedonian year continued, at first at any 
rate, to have a separate existence; cf. (20). The changes of the Macedonian 
year in the two preceding decades had been extraordinarily rapid, for it had 
lost about 4 months in the 16 years’ interval between (19) and (21), and even 
if (19) is wrongly dated by us, about 6 months in the 21 years’ interval between 
(18) and (21), unless indeed it had gained 6 months. The latter hypothesis is 
by no means out of the question ; for since the reign in the case of (19g) is 
uncertain and in (20), as we have shown, the reformed Macedonian calendar was 
probably employed, the movements of the Macedonian year in those two decades 
are extremely obscure; and though from its previous tendency it would be 
expected to continue to lose ground, absence of intercalations would, on the 
assumption that it contained 354 days (cf. p. 334), more than account for a gain 
of 6 months in 21 years. Whether the 6 months were lost or gained, it is 
clear. that some abnormal causes were at work to cause so great a change in 
the relation of the two calendars in a comparatively short period. That the 
sovernment had already several years before the date of (21) undertaken the 
reform of the Macedonian calendar is now made probable by the discovery of 
(20), and the relationship of the Macedonian and Egyptian calendars in (21) may 
well be due less to a gradual process of divergence than to a sudden arbitrary 
alteration in the Macedonian year. 

(22) Inscr. of Thera (Dittenberger, Or. Gr. /uscr. 1. 59) erovs m Adédvaiov te 
*Exeigu ve. This much discussed date has been assigned to the reign of Euergetes 
on palaeographical grounds by Hiller von Gartringen, who is followed by Strack 
and Dittenberger, and to that of Soter I by Mahaffy and formerly Smyly, who 
recently in /7ermathena, 1905, pp. 393-8, showed good reasons for attributing 

Ae PEN DEX T 351 

it to the reign of Epiphanes. The correspondence implied by (22) is the same 
as that which is known to have existed from the 24th year of Epiphanes to 
the 5th of the joint reign of Philometor, Euergetes, and Cleopatra (which = the 
16th of Philometor); and since this can hardly be the result of accident, and 
the 18th year of Philometor is for various reasons unsuitable, the reign of 
Epiphanes seemed to be indicated with practical certainty, for the evidence of 
the Rosetta Inscr. appeared to negative the supposition that the assimilated 
Macedonian calendar, with which (22) was in accordance, was introduced before 
the 9th year of Epiphanes. The situation is, however, somewhat altered by the 
discovery of (20), which shows that in spite of the Rosetta Inscr. the intro- 
duction of the assimilated Macedonian calendar probably took place between the 
4th year of Philopator and the 4th of Epiphanes; and though the difficulties 
involved in assigning (22) to the reign of any of the first three Ptolemies are still 
insuperable, it is possible that (22) belongs to the 18th year of Philopator. This 
monarch is generally supposed to have entered (though not completed) his 
18th year reckoned on the system according to which his years were counted 
from Thoth 1, and the balance between his accession and the following Thoth 1 
was treated as his rst year. There are, however, several objections to this date 
for (22). In the first place if his 18th year be reckoned from Thoth 1 it is very 
doubtful whether Philopator survived as late as Epeiph; cf. p. 362. Secondly, 
since the system of reckoning the king’s year under which Philopator is con- 
sidered to have entered his 18th year was, as is generally supposed, employed 
principally for revenue purposes, and the Thera Inscr. is not concerned with the 
revenues, the presumption is that the 18th year in (22) is calculated on some 
other system, either Egyptian or Macedonian; cf. App. ii. But if the 18th 
year in (22) is a ‘regnal’ year, Philopator is still more unlikely to have been 
the reigning sovereign, for his 18th regnal year would almost certainly coincide 
for the greater part, perhaps throughout, with his rgth revenue year, and the 
received chronology of Philopator’s reign is inconsistent with the hypothesis that 
he entered upon his 19th revenue year at all. Hence we adhere to Smyly’s 
view that (22) belongs to the 18th year of Epiphanes, that being the only reign 
to which it can be assigned without raising a host of difficulties. From this 
year up to the 5th year of the joint reign of Philometor, Euergetes II, and 
Cleopatra, which is illustrated by (28), a period of about 22 years, all the extant 
double dates are on the assimilated calendar, but irregularities again occur soon 
after Philometor’s return from exile; cf. (29), (30), and (31). 

(23) Hieroglyphic stele of Damanhir (Bouriant, Recueil de Travaux, 188 5y 
p. 1) ‘Year 23 (of Epiphanes) Gorpiaeus 24 = Pharmouthi 24. This date, if 
correct, conflicts with (22) and (24) to the extent of 1 month, but, as Smyly 


(2. c.) has shown, probably either the hieroglyphic symbols which are supposed 
to mean ‘the fourth month’ of its season, i.e. Pharmouthi, ought to be inter- 
preted as ‘the third, i.e. Phamenoth, or the stone-cutter has repeated a sign 
once too often, and has carved ‘the fourth’ in place of ‘the third.’ (23) then 
falls into line with (22) and (24)-(28). 

(24) Unpublished Tebtunis papyrus érovs rerdprov kal elxoorod (of Epiphanes) 
unvos Avarpov dyddne kal elxdd. OwdO dyddne wat eixdds; cf. Smyly, Zc. This is the 
earliest absolutely certain instance of the assimilation of the two calendars, 
which probably took place between the 4th year of Philopator and the 4th 
of ee cf. (20). 

)=(27): (25) P. Amh. 42. 21 érovs d{ev|répolv| (of Philometor) pyvds Atov 
Fey kat elkdde Taxar [evarne xlat elxadi, as restored by Krall and Smyly. 
(26) Unpublished Berlin papyrus quoted by Wilcken, Os¢. I. p. 782, Arte- 
misius 7 = Athur 7 in the 5th year of Philometor. (27) P. Amh. 43. 1 ous 
dyddov te Philometor) pnvos Awlov tpevoxadexatne Meyelp rpevoxadexarye; cf. 1. 8 
amoddrw ... €v pynvt Atdvatwr Alyumtiiw|y 6@ Emeip. Cf. (20). 

(28) Unpublished Tebtunis papyrus [érovs| méunrov (of the reign of Philo- 
metor, Euergetes II, and Cleopatra) pnvds ’AmedAalov évveaxadexdtnt TMatve 
evveaxardexatnt; cf. Smyly, 2 c. This year, which corresponds to the 16th 
of Philometor, provides the latest certain date for the continuance of the assimila- 
tion introduced by Philopator or Epiphanes; but a still later example is perhaps 
found in (30). 

(29) P. Par. 63. xiii. 14 (€rovs)  Tlepitiov 6 Meoopy xe. The reign has 
generally been supposed to be that of Philometor, since Cols. i-vii (which have 
no connexion with Col. xiii) were written in the 6th and 7th years of the joint 
reign (which = the 17th and 18th of Philometor), and it has been assumed that 
Col. xiii was later than Cols. i-vii. It would in that case appear that in the 
interval of little more than 2 years between (28) and (29) the Macedonian year 
had broken away from the Egyptian, and that in Peritius-Mesore the Mace- 
donian year was once more behind the Egyptian to the extent of 21 days. 
Smyly (/.c.) objects to this conclusion, and wishes to refer (29) to the reign 
of Philopator, supposing it to be a copy of an older document. This is 
a perfectly legitimate hypothesis in the case of a document like P. Par. 63. xiii 
(a royal rescript) which is anyhow a copy, not an original; but it seems to us 
unnecessary in the light of nos. (30) and particularly (31), both of which offer 
prima facie corroboration of the view that disturbances recurred in the 
Macedonian calendar after Philometor’s return from exile. Smyly disposes 
of (30) by postulating an error of the stone-cutter similar to that which creates 
a difficulty in connexion with (23), and of (31) because ‘it is assigned to 


Philometor on conjectural grounds only. The reasons for considering (31) 
to be later than the reign of Epiphanes are nevertheless very strong. The 
date occurs in a second century B.C. papyrus, which is less likely than (29) to 
be a copy of a much earlier document ; secondly, the mention in 1. 5 of ‘the 
queen’ in addition to ‘the king’ indicates a second century B.C. date, when 
the official status of queens was more important than in the third ; thirdly, 
neither Philopator nor Epiphanes entered their 26th year, and the relation of 
the calendars in the 26th years of Philadelphus and Euergetes I was, so far 
as is known, different from that implied by (31). Hence the choice of reigns 
with regard to (31) is practically limited to Philometor and Euergetes II ; and 
if the admission, which in our opinion is absolutely necessary in the case of (31), 
be once made, that the Macedonian year differed from the Egyptian in the 
interval between the 16th year of Philometor and the final assimilation of the 
Macedonian months to the Egyptian, there seems to be no sufficient reason for 
refusing to admit that (29) also belongs to that interval, especially since the 
introduction of the reformed Macedonian calendar failed, as (21) shows, to bring 
about the complete abandonment of the unreformed system, at any rate until 
after the gth year of Epiphanes. It is quite possible that both systems con- 
tinued in use until the second and final assimilation of the Macedonian to the 
Egyptian calendar took place, although from the 18th year of Epiphanes to the 
16th of Philometor the present evidence indicates the employment of only one set 
of Macedonian months. We prefer therefore to adhere to the ordinary view that 
(29) belongs to the reign of Philometor, and consider either that in the interval 
between (28) and (29) the Macedonian year resumed its ancient tendency to 
lose, or else that the unreformed calendar had never fallen into desuetude, and 
reasserted itself in (29)-(31). In the Table of correspondences we have pro- 
ceeded on the hypothesis that during the second period of irregularity the 
Macedonian year had reverted to its supposed former number of 354 days 
supplemented by intercalations. 

(30) Hieroglyphic Inscr. at Philae (Lepsius, Denkmaler, IV. 27 6) ‘Year 24 
(of Philometor) Peritius = Epeiph 1’. In the absence of a distinct mention of 
the day of the Macedonian month it is not clear that it coincided with the 
day of the Egyptian month; cf. p. 340. Smyly (/. c.), however, wished to regard 
it as the same, and brought this correspondence into conformity with those found 
in the earlier period of assimilation by supposing an error of the stone-cutter 
similar to that which, as there is good reason to believe, occurs in (23), and 
by substituting ‘the fourth month’ (Mesore) for ‘the third month’ (Epeiph). 
We, however, are less anxious to get rid of irregularities in the Macedonian 
year at this period, and prefer to admit that in the 6 years’ interval between 



(29) and (30) the Macedonian year may have gained considerably upon the 
Egyptian. The limits of this gain are if Peritius 1 was the day in (30), 51 days, 
if Peritius 30, as is conceivable since the figure is omitted, 80 days. Less 
disturbance, therefore, would be caused if the figure 1 refers to both Macedonian 
and Egyptian months than if the days are different ; but on either view it would 
seem that several years passed without intercalations, or a large deduction was 
made from the Macedonian year at one or more points. If Smyly’s suggestion 
that Epeiph in (30) is an error for Mesore be combined with our view that the 
calendar again became irregular in Philometor’s reign, the first assimilated 
calendar may be supposed to have continued in use until the introduction of the 

(31) P. Par. 60. recto 4 (érovs) xq EZavdixod a Owv xe. The day of the 
Macedonian month might be A or, less probably, 6. The view of Brunet de 
Presle, the first editor, that the reign of Philometor is meant, is supported by 
Strack, but has recently been called in question by Smyly (/.¢.). As we have 
stated in connexion with (29), the objections to referring (31) to an earlier 
reign than Philometor’s seem to be overwhelming, and on the other hand, since 
both the 26th year of Ptolemy Alexander is palaeographically, though possible, 
not a very suitable date for the papyrus, and an extant double date in that year 
(P. Leyden O) is in accordance with the later assimilation of the two calendars, 
the choice really lies between the reigns of Philometor and Euergetes II. 
Brunet de Presle justly prefers Philometor on the ground that the Dioscurides 
and two Dorions mentioned in P. Par. 61 may well be identical with the 
dioecetes Dioscurides and epimeletes Dorion who are mentioned in other 
Serapeum papyri in the 24th year of Philometor, and the Dorion who is known 
from P. Par. 63 as hypodioecetes in the 7th year of the joint reign of Philometor 
with his brother and sister (which = the 18th of Philometor). But since the 
26th year of Euergetes II is only 11 years later than the 26th of Philometor 
it is impossible to decide between the two reigns with any degree of certainty. 
Contrasting (31) with (29), which is a little more than 7 or perhaps 18 years 
earlier, the Macedonian year had reverted nearly to its relation towards the 
Egyptian year under the assimilated calendar. 

(32) P. Tebt. 25. 7 €rovs vy Zav(duxod) «¢ Mexelp u¢. This is the earhtest 
instance yet found of the second and final assimilation of the two calendars, 
introduced probably by Euergetes II, who with greater success than the author 
of the first assimilation deprived the Macedonian year of a separate existence by 
equating Dius to Thoth and the other months to correspond. Henceforth the 
Macedonian months, though often inserted in contracts far into the Roman period, 
became a useless appendage of their Egyptian equivalents. 


We give below in tabular form a list of the differences between the relations 
of the Macedonian and Egyptian years implied by the double dates, leaving 
out of account those correspondences in which the day is not given on both 
calendars, and those which are on the assimilated calendar introduced in the 
interval between (18) and (20). The losses or gains of the Macedonian year 
(the sign for szuus means that it had lost, i.e. gone slower than the Egyptian 
year, the sign for p/us that it had gained, i.e. gone faster) are calculated on 
the hypothesis that it contained apart from intercalations 354 days. 

Gain or loss of Mace- 

Interval between Approx. no. of Egyptian years, donian year in days. 
(1) and (5) 73, years ~93(?) 
(5) and (6) I year and 7 months (?) +9 
(6) and (6 a) 10 years — 43 
(6 a) and (7) I year and 3 months (?) +4 
(7) and (9) 7 years — 66 
(9) and (10) ots, +12 
(10) and (13) Aen —22 
(13) and (14) 4 months (?) +1 
(14) and (16) I year and r month (?) +2 
(16) and (17) 3 years ay 
(17) and (18) 4 months (?) +20 
(18) and (19) 5 years (?) — 56 
(19) and (21) Ow 45 (8) —125 
(18) and (21) ip A —18r or +184 
(21) and (29) ATs, +119 (?) 
(29) and (31) qa a9) (EOL years P) +21 

We conclude with a summary of the chief results of our inquiry into this 
complicated subject. 

(1) The irregularities of the Macedonian calendar fall into two main sections, 
according as they are earlier or later than the introduction of the temporary 
system by which the. Macedonian months beginning with Dystrus were equated 
to the Egyptian months beginning with Thoth. 

(2) The earliest certain example of the use of this system is no. (24), which 
belongs to the 24th year of Epiphanes, but there is good reason to believe that it 
had already been introduced by the 4th year of Epiphanes; cf. no. (20). Since 
there is no indication of its employment in the evidence down to the 4th year of 
Philopator, the date of the first assimilation of the Macedonian to the Egyptian 
months is to be attributed to the period of 18 years between the 4th year of 



Philopator and the 4th of Epiphanes. The latest certain example of the use 
of the assimilated Macedonian calendar is provided by no. (28), written in the 
5th year of the reign of Philometor, Euergetes II, and Cleopatra, which= the 
16th year of Philometor ; but possibly no. (30), which is 8 years later than (29), is on 
the same system, and that system may even have survived until the introduction 
of the second assimilation by which the Macedonian months from Dius onwards 
were equated to the Egyptian months beginning with Thoth. 

(3) There is no justification for such a hypothesis as Strack’s that there were 
two sets of Egyptian months with the same names, making (1) the ordinary 
vague year of 365 days which starts from Thoth 1, and (2) a fixed year of 
3654 days reckoned from the rising of Sirius on July 19, and two sets of 
Macedonian months with the same names making years of unknown length 
starting approximately from the spring and autumn equinoxes, a hypothesis which 
accounts for dates on two calendars only by throwing all dates on one calendar 
into chaos. The view of Krall that the Egyptian months in documents of 
the Ptolemaic period are, so far as we know, all reckoned by the vague year 
of 365 days is sound, and there is no reason to suppose the existence of more 
than one set of Macedonian months before the introduction of the first assimi- 
lated Macedonian calendar between the 4th year of Philopator and the 4th year 
of Epiphanes. 

(4) The Macedonian year was probably a lunar one of 354 days, the 
12 months from Dius to Hyperberetacus containing alternately 29 and 30 days. 
Without any intercalations or deductions, it was thus 11 days shorter than the 
Egyptian vague year. 

(5) In order to make up for this difference between the two calendars the 
Macedonian year was subjected to frequent intercalations, the effect of which 
was to make it on the average longer than the Egyptian year. Hence, before 
the first period of assimilation, the general tendency of Dius 1 is gradually to 
fall later in the Egyptian year, so that at the end of the 32 years’ period. 
between the 35th year of Philadelphus (5) and the 4th of Philopator (17) the 
relation of the Macedonian calendar to the Egyptian was different by 150 days 
from what it had been at the beginning. 

(6) No consistent method of intercalation in the Macedonian year was 
maintained through a series of years; the irregularities are such that the 
number of intercalated days seems to have varied from year to year. The 
principles on which the number was fixed by the government and the place 
in the year at which the days were inserted are quite uncertain; but a whole 
month was sometimes intercalated ; cf. p. 334. 

(7) In opposition to the general tendency of the Macedonian year to lose, 


there are before the first assimilation four cases, (6), (7), (10), and (16), and 
perhaps three more, (11), (13), and (18), in which the sequence of Egyptian days 
corresponding to Dius 1 is broken, and the Macedonian year has in comparison 
with the immediately preceding correspondence gained instead of losing. Of 
these seven apparent exceptions to the general rule nos. (6), (7), (10), and (16) 
cause no great difficulty, because the number of days gained by the Mace- 
donian year is in all four instances less than the amount that it would neces- 
sarily gain if there had been no intercalations in the year or, in the case of 
(10), the years preceding. The exceptional character of (11) is caused by its 
being placed after (g); but the correspondence is of an anticipatory character 
which may never have actually occurred, and the position assigned to this date, 
on the ground of the supposed shortness of the interval between it and (12), 
which is most conveniently placed immediately before (13), is very uncertain. 
The correspondence in (11), moreover, being only approximate, may be the 
same as that indicated by (10), and if (10) and (11) refer to the same year, (11) 
would cause no more difficulty than (10). As for (13), the break which it makes 
in the sequence is more apparent than real, for since in the year to which it refers 
Dius 1 fell near the end of Mecheir, the fact that in (12) Dius approximately 
corresponded to Phamenoth is in no way inconsistent with the hypothesis 
that between (12) and (13) the Macedonian year was, as usual, losing or at 
least not gaining. By far the most serious exception to the rule that the 
Macedonian year tends to lose would seem to arise in (18), which, if it is 
4 months later than (17), indicates that in that interval the Macedonian year 
had gained no less than 20 days. Whether this is due to an error in the 
figures in (17) or (18) or to the sudden omission of 20 days in the Macedonian 
year is doubtful. 

(8) The changes in the relation of the Macedonian to the Egyptian year 
are more rapid in the early parts of the reigns of Euergetes and Philopator 
than in the later parts of the reigns of Philadelphus and Euergetes. 

(9) After the assimilation of the Macedonian months to the Egyptian intro- 
duced between the 4th year of Philopator and the 4th year of Epiphanes, 
irregular correspondences, which imply the existence of a distinct Macedonian 
year, are occasionally found. Of these (21), of the gth year of Epiphanes, is best 
explained on the hypothesis that, side by side with the reformed Macedonian 
calendar, the old Macedonian year was still running, its movements in relation 
to the Egyptian year during the interval between (17) and (21) having been 
exceptionally rapid. After (21) there follows a period of about 21 years (from 
the 18th year of Epiphanes to the 5th year of the joint reign of Philometor, 
Euergetes II, and Cleopatra), during which, if Smyly’s correction in no. (23) be 


accepted, all the extant double dates, (22)-(28), exhibit the assimilated 
calendar, and the old Macedonian year may have then fallen into complete 
disuse. But soon after Philometor’s return from exile irregular correspondences 
are found once more in (29)-(31). Whether these are to be explained on the 
view that the old Macedonian year reasserted itself, or that the Macedonian year 
broke away from the assimilated calendar in the interval between (28) and (29), 
is not certain. 

(10) The existence of a distinct Macedonian year cannot be detected with 
any degree of certainty after the 26th year of Philometor, but owing to the 
doubt as to the exact date of (31) it may have continued beyond the 26th year 
of Euergetes II. Between the year in which (31) was written and the 53rd of 
Euergetes II the Macedonian year beginning with Dius was finally assimilated 
to the Egyptian vague year beginning with Thoth. 

If the general theory which by the aid of much new evidence we have 
suggested is on the right lines, and in all the extant double dates there was 
but one Egyptian year of 365 days and, until the introduction of the earlier 
of the two assimilated calendars, only one Macedonian year which on the whole 
tended to lose in relation to the Egyptian, the problems caused by the use of 
the Macedonian calendar will henceforth be somewhat simplified, for it is possible 
from our Table to predict within certain limits the Egyptian month with which 
a Macedonian month at any period from about the middle of Philadelphus’ 
reign to the 4th year of Philopator corresponded. If these predictions are 
fulfilled by fresh instances of double dates, the correctness of our explanation will 
be verified ; while on the other hand, if e.g. in the future Dius in the 31st year 
of Philadelphus is found equated to Pharmouthi, or in the 18th year of Euer- 
getes to Mesore, or in the 3rd year of Philopator to Choiak, the proposed theory 
and the inferences based upon it must be abandoned. The irregular corre- 
spondences which occur after the first attempt to assimilate the Macedonian to the 
Egyptian calendar are still too few to admit the possibility of a satisfactory 
theory with regard to the movements of the unreformed Macedonian year in the 
second century B.C. 



WE have had frequent occasions in the course of the present volume to 
allude to the difficulties caused by the use of more than one system of calculating 
the years of the reigning king. Our object in this appendix is to discuss in the 


light of the new evidence the relationship of the king’s years to the ordinary 
Egyptian vague years of 365 days beginning on Thoth1. Until 1891 it was gener- 
ally supposed that the method of reckoning the years of the king in the earlier 
Ptolemaic period was the same as that employed in the later Ptolemaic and the 
Roman periods. According to this system the interval between a king’s 
accession and the next Thoth 1 was counted as his 1st year, while his 2nd and 
succeeding years began on Thoth 1; and in spite of the discovery of some 
disconcerting evidence, nearly all editors and historians continue to convert early 
Ptolemaic dates into the corresponding years of the Julian calendar upon the 
assumption that the years of the king were reckoned on that method. In 1891, 
however, it was shown by a Petrie papyrus (Part I, 28 (2)=Part III, introd. p. 8 
and 58 (c)) that in Euergetes I’s reign two different systems of calculating the 
king’s years were in vogue. The correct restoration of the mutilated date- 
formula in that papyrus, which in its imperfect form was discussed by Revillout 
(Mdlanges, p. 350), and Strack (Rhein. Mus. liii, p. 410), was first established 
from a parallel text in the Petrie papyri (Part III, 58 (d)) by Smyly (Hermathena, 
1899, p- 432), who showed that the formula was in both cases érovs ta ws 6’ al 
mpdaodo. érovs 13, the day being in one case Phamenoth 25, in the other case lost. 
To those two instances have now to be added (3) P. Magd. 35. 2 (re-edited by 
Th. Reinach in J/élanges Nicole, pp. 451-9) tod yap € (érovs) ws ai mpdc0d0r Papeva| 4], 
the reign being that of Philopator ; (4) 80. 13-4, where the demotic docket to 
a Greek receipt written on Epeiph 4 of the 35th year of Philadelphus is dated 
‘year 34 which makes year 35’; (5) an unpublished Tebtunis papyrus from 
mummy 8, containing part of a petition to the king, in which (érovs) 18 os ai 
mpocodot ty occurs; (6) the British Museum bilingual papyrus of Philopator’s 
reign (Griffith, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. 1901, pp. 294-302), in which the incon- 
sistency between the date of the demotic contract (‘Year 12, Tubi’) and that 
of the Greek docket (‘Year 13, Tubi 4’) is probably to be explained by the 
hypothesis that the king’s years are calculated by two different methods. 

Combining the evidence for the double system of reckoning the king’s 
years, three inferences are certain:—(1) the double system extended over the 
reigns of Philadelphus, Euergetes I, and Philopator, (2) one of the two systems 
was employed for revenue purposes, (3) the figures of the ‘revenue’ year 
were sometimes one in advance of those of the other, which we shall henceforth call 
the ‘regnal’ year. Beyond these three inferences we enter the region of con- 
jecture, though a few steps may be taken with fair security. 

In the first place it may be taken for granted that one of the two different 
years corresponds to the ordinary vague year, the second year of the reign 
commencing with the next Thoth 1 after the king’s accession, as in later 

360 TBE eA Ye 

Ptolemaic times and apparently under the XXVIth Dynasty (Spiegelberg, 
Dem. Pap. der Strassburger Bibliothek, p. 15; Krall, Festschr. f. O. Hirschfeld, 
p. 115). If any proof of this assumption is required it is supplied by e. g. 
P. Petrie III. 112, a taxing-list in which the 2nd year of Philopator is treated as 
the next after the 26th and last year of Euergetes, the incomplete 26th year 
of Euergetes being combined with the incomplete Ist year of his successor so as 
to make a single year; cf. also P. Petrie 119 verso, ii. 9 | rv Tod Kg (Tous). a 

Assuming therefore that either the revenue or the regnal year is the vague 
year, with which of the two is it to be identified? Revillout, who in spite of 
reading etoodo. for apécodo. had divined that P. Petrie I. 28 (2) referred to 
a financial year, identified this with the ordinary vague year; and the same 
hypothesis was maintained by Smyly (/.c.) and is accepted by Th. Reinach, 
although all three hold different views as to the nature of the regnal year. 
This identification is indeed a natural corollary of the preceding assumption, if it 
be also admitted that a revenue year should be fairly stable; for a year of 365 
days regularly beginning on Thoth 1 fulfils this requirement far better than 
a year of which the duration and starting-point may have been irregular. 
We have no wish to depart from this generally received view that the revenue 
years were ordinary vague years calculated as in later Ptolemaic times. Of the 
numerous papyri and ostraca concerning mpdcodo the great majority accord very 
well with it, especially the taxing-list for the 26th year of Euergetes and 2nd 
year of Philopator mentioned above, which is very difficult to reconcile with any 
other view of the revenue year. But the presence of numerous exceptions to 
the rule that for revenue purposes the years were reckoned from Thoth 1 must 
be admitted. In the regulations for the payment of the daépopa in Rev. Laws 
xxxiv. 5 the Egyptian calendar is ignored altogether, and the year is reckoned 
and Aiov éws ['YrepBeperatov (cf. Wilcken, Osz. I. p. 519) ; and in Rev. Laws lvii. 
4-5 the king sells the éAaxy for two years reckoned from Gorpiaeus—Mesore, 
not from Thoth. In 114 the persons who are farming two taxes els 76 y (€ros) 
of a king present a list of g monthly instalments reckoned from Mecheir to 
Phaophi, ignoring Thoth 1 as the beginning of a new financial year. In 116 the 
year which is the subject of the tax-farming account in question is divided into 
two halves beginning at Mecheir and Mesore respectively, and though no year 
is mentioned in this case, the normal practice in farming taxes was to buy the 
right of collection for a particular year of areign ; cf. Wilcken, 27.c. A financial 
year beginning in Mecheir would also suit 115, another tax-farming account 
dealing with the period from Mecheir to Pachon, while 183 suggests a financial 
year beginning in Mesore. Neither of the last two instances, however, is very 

A Eelats NDIEXGE EL: 361 

strong, and it would be possible to explain away some of the other apparent 
exceptions. The case of the dzépoipa might be accounted for, as Wilcken (2. c.) 
suggests, by supposing that a76 A‘ou éws [‘TrepBeperatov applied only to Alexandria, 
and that in the x#pa the words would be understood as equivalent to amd Oa0 Ews 
Mecop7, though this explanation is admitted by its proposer to be unconvincing, 
and in the light of the frequent use of the Macedonian calendar in the Petrie, 
and still more in the Hibeh, papyri Wilcken seems to us to under-estimate 
largely the extent of its employment for official and ordinary purposes. The 
fact that the édaixy was sold from Gorpiaeus-Mesore may well be due to special 
circumstances, or the regulations concerning the year for tax-farming purposes 
may have been different in the case of the oil-monopoly from what they were 
in the case of ordinary taxes (Wilcken, /.c.) ; in any event the two years for 
which the éAaixj was sold are not stated to have coincided with two definite 
years of the king’s reign. The difficulty caused by 116, in which Mecheir begins 
the financial year, might also be evaded by supposing either that for some 
exceptional reason the year for the collection of this particular tax was spread 
over parts of two revenue years instead of the whole of one, or that the 12 months 
from Mecheir to Tubi were, contrary to custom, only part of a larger period 
extending originally from Thoth 1, for which the tax was farmed. We do not 
however wish to bring 116 into conformity with the ordinary revenue year, for 
even if all the other apparent exceptions were explained away, there would still 
remain 114, where no exercise of ingenuity can make the year in which the 
instalments were paid (Mecheir to Tubi or, less probably, Athur to Phaophi) 
coincide with an ordinary revenue year, in spite of the fact that the taxes in 
question were farmed els 76 y (éros). This papyrus indeed leads to a serious 
dilemma: for either 70 y éros is a loose expression for a period covering two 
parts of successive revenue years, which is not at all a satisfactory hypothesis, 
or else 16 y éros began in Mecheir (or Athur). The latter inference is 
undoubtedly the more natural; but the adoption of it implies not merely that 
the taxing year in this particular case failed to coincide with an ordinary revenue 
year, a phenomenon for which there are other parallels, but that on the system 
of reckoning the king’s years employed in the case of rd y éros Mecheir (or 
Athur) was the first month of the year—a result which might have an important 
bearing on the question of the starting-point of the non-revenue or regnal year. 
Whichever alternative be chosen, it is clear that 114 is an exception to the rule 
that in documents concerning the revenue the year is reckoned from Thoth to 
Mesore. Our conclusion, therefore, with regard to the revenue year is that, 
although there is good ground for identifying it with the ordinary vague year, 
and in most cases where the years of a king’s reign occur in documents relating 


to the revenues these are to be considered revenue years, nevertheless in some 
departments of finance the accounts were kept without reference to the beginning 
or close of the revenue year, and when the year of a king’s reign is mentioned in 
a revenue document this is not in itself a sufficient guarantee that it is a revenue 
rather than some other kind of year, whether Egyptian or Macedonian. 

With regard to the system of calculating the regnal years the central fact is 
that where the regnal and revenue years are known to differ, the figures of the 
revenue year are in some cases (probably in all) one in advance. The circum- 
stance that when both kinds of years are mentioned together the revenue year 
stands second and is in all the Greek instances defined, indicates that the 
undefined year which is mentioned first was the more important; and it is 
probable that down to the accession of Epiphanes at any rate the regnal year was 
more often employed than the revenue year in dating documents which are not 
concerned with the revenues. With regard to private contracts and wills there 
are some special grounds (cf. p. 374) for thinking that it was not customary to 
date them by the revenue year. The identification of the revenue year with the 
annus vagus (the balance of days between the king’s accession and the following 
Thoth 1 being reckoned as his Ist year) necessitates the conclusion that the 
regnal year was calculated differently, but a more definite view of it is very 
difficult to obtain. °* 

Smyly (Hlermathena, 1899, p. 432) proposed to regard the regnal years as 
Egyptian years of 365 days calculated from the king’s accession and succeeding 
anniversaries of it, according to which system the numbers of the regnal years 
would be one behind those of the revenue years in the period between Thoth 1 
and the anniversary. The question then arises—In what months did the accession 
of the earlier Ptolemies take place? Epiphanes, if the hieroglyphic version of 
the Rosetta Inscr. may be trusted (the Greek is unfortunately defective on the 
point), and if mapéAaBev ri Baoirelav mapa tod matpds in |. 47 refers, as is 
generally supposed, to the king’s accession, came to the throne on Phaophi 17, 
but unfortunately no document belonging to his reign has yet been discovered in 
which the revenue are distinguished from the regnal years. With regard to the 
month of Philadelphus’ accession nothing is known. From 80. 13 it would be 
necessary on the accession theory of regnal years to infer that he came to the 
throne after Epeiph 4; and this hypothesis would accord very well with the 
fact that a demotic papyrus now being edited by Mr. Griffith (cf. 84 (a) introd.) 
is dated in Phamenoth of the 21st year of Soter. The Canon of Ptolemy assigns 
only 20 years to Soter, and if that statement is accurate and the 21st year 
was not only his last year but a revenue year, the evidence would point to 
Philadelphus’ accession having taken place between Phamenoth and. the 


following Thoth 1. If the 21st year of Soter is a regnal year, the received 
chronology of Soter’s reign is in danger of being upset, and amid the general 
uncertainty which would result it would no longer be possible to be sure that the 
21st year was his last. But either view is consistent with the hypothesis that 
Philadelphus’ reign began in Epeiph or Mesore. 

Next with regard to Philopator P. Magd. 35. 2 would on the accession 
theory indicate that this event took place between Phamenoth and the following 
Thoth, and if Jouguet and Lefebvre are right in inferring from the Magdola 
papyri written in the Ist year of Philopator (P. Magd. Deuxiéme Série, p. 205) 
that he came to the throne between Thoth 1 and Tubi 12, it would be 
impossible to harmonize these inferences. But the conclusion that Philopator’s 
accession took place before Tubi 12 rests on the assumption that in the Magdola 
papyri written on Tubi 12 of the 1st year of that reign the Ist revenue year, 
which ended on the 5th intercalary day, is meant. If (as is on the whole more 
probable) they are dated by the regnal year, they do not, until the beginning 
and end of Philopator’s first regnal year have been determined by other 
evidence, prove more than the fact that his Ist regnal year included Tubi 12. 
Though Euergetes is known from P. Petrie III. 112 to have died in his 
26th revenue year, we have been unable to discover any document actually 
dated in that year which would indicate how far into the 26th year his reign 
lasted. Some better evidence for the month of Philopator’s accession is provided 
by P. Petrie III. 141, an account dated at the beginning (€rovs) xe Xojtalx and 
ending with Thoth of the ist year. Palaeographical considerations render it 
practically certain that the reigns of Euergetes and Philopator are meant, and 
the form of one of the entries, (Il. 24-5) kat dWoéxvioy Tod a (€rovs) azo Tabve Ews Tod 
Oair pynvav 6 (dpaxpat) is, implies, as Smyly remarks, that the whole of this 
period of 4 months was included in the Ist year. From this it is necessary to 
infer that the Ist is not a revenue year; and it becomes probable that the 
25th year mentioned in the heading is the last regnal year of Euergetes, and 
that Philopator came to the throne between Choiak and Pauni. Since the 
accession theory only requires that Philopator should have come to the throne 
between Phamenoth and Mesore inclusive, it is perfectly in accord with the 
evidence of P. Petrie III. 141. But a great objection to this theory arises 
out of the data for the accession of Euergetes. The Canopus Inscr. |. 6 
Thy Teuntynv Kal eikada Tod avrod pyvos (sc. Dius) év fu mapéAaBev THY Bactdrelayv Tapa 
tod matpds has been almost universally interpreted as meaning that Euergetes’ 
accession took place on Dius 25th. The inference is not free from doubt, for the 
Rosetta Inscr. uses the phrase mapadaBeiv tiv Baoirelay mapa tod aarpos in 
connexion with two different days, Mecheir 18 (ll. 7-8) and Phaophi 17 (I. 47; 


cf. p. 362). The first date is supposed to refer to the king’s coming of age, the 
second to his actual accession when an infant (cf. Dittenberger, Orvzentis Graect 
Inscr. 1. p. 145), and it is not quite certain that in the Canopus Inscr. the phrase 
refers to the king’s accession rather than e.g. to his coronation; but we are 
disinclined to depart from the ordinary interpretation of the passage. The 
information, however, that Euergetes came to the throne on Dius 25 is not of 
much service unless that date on the Macedonian calendar can be converted into 
its approximate Egyptian equivalent. The general tendency of the Macedonian 
months to fall later in the Egyptian year, coupled with the fact that in the 36th 
year of Philadelphus Dius approximately coincided with Athur and in the gth 
year of Euergetes with Choiak—-Tubi (cf. Table), requires that the accession of 
Euergetes on Dius 25 should fall in the months Athur, Choiak or Tubi, or at 
any rate within the period from Phaophi to Mecheir inclusive. This is in 
accordance with the evidence of papyri dated near the end of Philadelphus’ 
reign, for the latest recorded date in his 39th year is Athur 16 (53. 4). It is 
also consistent with Smyly’s interpretation of the date in the heading of 
P. Petrie III. 141. In itself, therefore, the hypothesis that Euergetes’ accession 
occurred in Athur—Tubi is quite satisfactory; but Smyly himself remarks that 
it is irreconcilable with his former explanation of regnal years, which requires 
that the revenue years should be in advance of the regnal years only in the 
period from Thoth 1 to the anniversary of the accession, whereas P. Petrie 
III. 58 (c) shows that the period during which the revenue years were in 
advance extended as late as Phamenoth 25. To suppose, as the accession 
theory requires, that Dius 25 in the 1st year of Euergetes corresponded to some 
day in the period between Phamenoth 25 and the end of Mesore would hopelessly 
break the sequence which we believe to be traceable in the months of the 
Egyptian year corresponding to Dius in the latter part of the third century B.C. 

Another explanation of the regnal years has recently been suggested by 
Th. Reinach (J7éanges Nicole, p. 456), who proposes to regard them as ordinary 
Egyptian vague years of 365 days like the revenue years, but calculated from 
Thoth 1 after the king’s accession, the balance of days between the king’s 
accession and the following Thoth 1 (which constituted the 1st revenue year) 
being attributed to his dead predecessor. On this theory of the regnal years, 
their numbers were invariably one behind those of the revenue years, and so far 
as the papyri dated by both systems are concerned (which, it may be noted, 
with one exception fell in the second half of the Egyptian vague year), they are 
consistent with Reinach’s explanation. But Reinach’s view is open to grave 
objections. In the first place it is a priori improbable that people would 
continue to date documents by the reign of a king who was known to be 

dead; and, not to mention 116 and the other instances quoted on pp. 350-1, 
P. Petrie III. 141 seems to us in itself sufficient to remove Reinach’s inability to 
believe (/. c.) ‘qu’a aucune époque les années régnales aient été officiellement 
compteées a partir d’une autre date que le 1° Thoth,’ for a year in which Thoth 
comes after Mesore cannot have begun with Thoth. In order to reconcile 
Reinach’s explanation of regnal years with P. Petrie III. 141 it seems necessary 
to suppose that the whole period from a king’s accession to the end of his 2nd 
revenue year was counted as his first regnal year. From this it would follow 
that in a Ist regnal year some months occurred twice over, which is a very 
unsatisfactory hypothesis. Secondly, if Thoth 1 was New Year’s day on both 
the revenue and regnal systems, the only intelligible justification for having 
a separate system for budget purposes is removed, and the distinction between 
the two systems would seem to have been designed for the purpose of creating 
confusion. If the regnal years ignored Thoth 1 altogether, it is perfectly 
natural that the Ptolemies maintained for financial purposes the observance of 
a year with a fixed number of days and a fixed starting-point which remained 
unaffected by the succession of sovereigns. But if the regnal year was of the 
same character as the revenue year, there seems to be no adequate reason for 
having a separate year for financial purposes which only differed from the regnal 
year by having its numbers one in advance. 

Thirdly, if the regnal as well as the revenue year was regulated by the 
Egyptian calendar, it is practically necessary to postulate the existence of 
a third system of reckoning the years of a king employed in documents dated 
on the Macedonian calendar ; for it is hardly credible that e.g. in royal edicts, 
which usually ignore the Egyptian months altogether, the commencement and 
duration of the years of the reign should be fixed with reference to an Egyptian 
system ; cf. Strack, Rhein. Mus. liii. p. 422. Moreover Rev. Laws xxxiv. 5 (cf. 
p- 360) shows that a Macedonian year from Dius to Hyperberetaeus was sometimes 
taken into account, even in matters relating to finance; and the evidence of the 
double dates proves that the relation of Macedonian months to the Egyptian was 
subject to perpetual alterations. It is of course not only a legitimate but no 
doubt the safer course to leave the question of Macedonian years on one side 
in discussing the distinction of the Egyptian revenue and regnal years; but to 
suppose that in documents dated by the Macedonian calendar the years meant 
are also Egyptian regnal years would greatly simplify the problem by reducing 
the number of systems in common use from three to two. 

The view that the Egyptian regnal years were really Macedonian years 
calculated from the date of the king’s accession and succeeding anniversaries of 
it was suggested by Revillout (/4anges, p. 350) in connexion with P. Petrie 


I. 28 (2) (=III. 58 (c)), but so long as the relation of the Egyptian and 
Macedonian calendars was involved in complete obscurity remained incapable of 
proof or disproof. Now, however, granting that Euergetes’ accession took place 
on Dius 25, it is worth while to inquire how far the view that his regnal years 
began on Dius 25 avoids the principal difficulty (cf. p. 364) which arises if the 
regnal years are supposed to have commenced on anniversaries of that day on 
the Egyptian calendar with which Dius 25th corresponded at Euergetes’ 
accession. In order to make Phamenoth 25 of Euergetes’ 12th revenue year 
fall within his r1th regnal year, as is indicated by P. Petrie III. 58 (c), it is 
necessary, on Revillout’s theory of regnal years, to suppose that Dius 25, the 
first day of the 12th regnal year, fell later than Phamenoth 25, i.e. that Dius 
1 fell later than Phamenoth 1. But the evidence of double dates in the gth and 
16th years of Euergetes (cf. App. i, Table) suggests that Dius 1 in the 12th year 
fell in Choiak or Tubi, and the hypothesis that it fell later than Phamenoth 1 in 
the 12th year would therefore disturb the sequence of double dates not much 
less than the view that it fell later than Phamenoth 1 at Euergetes’ accession. 
Nor is the date in P. Petrie III. 58 (c) easier to explain by supposing that the 
regnal years began on Dius 1, the balance of days between the king’s accession 
and the following Dius I being reckoned as his 1st regnal year: for in that case 
Dius 1 of the 12th regnal year must have begun later than Phamenoth 25, a 
conclusion which increases rather than diminishes the difficulty referred to above. 
The theory of a Macedonian origin of the Egyptian regnal years can indeed 
be reconciled with the extant evidence concerning both the divergence of the 
regnal and revenue years in the reign of Euergetes and the relation of the 
Macedonian and Egyptian calendars in his reign by supposing that the regnal 
years were reckoned from Dius 1, but that the Ist regnal year either began 
on Dius 1 following his accession or included the period from his accession up to 
the next but one Dius 1. The former alternative is, however, open to the 
objection already urged against Reinach’s view (cf. p. 364), viz. the difficulty of 
supposing that documents would continue to be dated by the years of a king 
who is known to be dead, and the latter would lead to the conclusion that 
Euergetes’ first regnal year contained two whole Macedonian years less 24 days; 
while from either theory it would follow that the numbers of the regnal years were 
in certain months two in arrear of those of the revenue years, which is unlikely. 
We are reduced therefore to the conclusion that none of the suggested 
explanations of the distinction between revenue and regnal years can be regarded 
as satisfactory, and that the present evidence is inadequate to provide a solution 
of the problem. In these circumstances the only course is to fall back upon the 
one certain fact connected with regnal years that their numbers were sometimes 



one in arrear of those of revenue years; and since the distinction between 
a revenue and regnal year is maintained in Philadelphus’ reign as late as Epeiph 
and in the reigns of Euergetes and Philopator as late as Phamenoth, for practical 
purposes regnal years may be regarded as approximately a year in arrear of the 
revenue years. This consideration has an important bearing on the conversion of 
early Ptolemaic dates into years of the Julian calendar, since any date in which 
the year of the king is regnal is likely to fall within the year B.C. following that 
within which it would fall if the king’s year were a revenue one; and the con- 
ventional system, which still prevails, of converting early Ptolemaic dates into 
years B.C. on the assumption that the king’s years are reckoned on the revenue 
system is certainly in need of modification. With regard to the system of 
calculating the king’s years employed in documents which are dated by 
Macedonian months, there are some reasons for thinking that the years cor- 
respond with regnal rather than with revenue years (cf. p. 374) ; and in the absence 
of any direct evidence for more than two systems of reckoning the king’s years 
we are inclined to identify the official Macedonian years with the regnal years, 
and hence to connect the difficulties concerning the latter with the use of 
a Macedonian instead of an Egyptian year, although the fresh evidence adduced 
in this volume with regard to the Macedonian calendar does not render that con- 
nexion easier to unravel. 



THE list of the eponymous priesthoods during the Ptolemaic period in Otto’s 
Priester und Tempel, pp. 175-96, can now be largely supplemented as regards 
the third century B.C. from the new volume of the Petrie papyri and the present 
series of texts, and a revised table of the priesthoods during the reigns of the 
first three Ptolemies may be found useful. The most striking feature of the new 
evidence is that which proves the extreme antiquity of the priesthood of 
Alexander at Alexandria, the origin of which cult has been in its various 
bearings one of the most widely discussed problems in the history of the 
Diadochi. Hitherto the earliest year to which the priesthood of Alexander 
could be carried back was the 16th year of Philadelphus (B. C. 270-69 or 269-8), 
to which P. Petrie I. 24, until now the oldest dated Greek papyrus, belongs ; 
two earlier demotic contracts in the Louvre, dated in the 13th year of Soter 



and the 8th year of Philadelphus respectively, made no mention of any priest- 
hoods. Though the dangerous character of the argumentum a silentio when 
based upon date-formulae of contracts is by this time generally admitted, the 
evidence of these two demotic papyri that the cult of Alexander was not 
instituted till some years after the accession of Philadelphus seemed to be 
supported by the circumstance that, when that cult made its appearance, the 
gods Adelphi were uniformly associated with Alexander ; and it is not surpris- 
ing that the latest critic (Otto, of. cit. pp. 138-52) strongly supports the 
view of e.g. Wilamowitz and Wilcken, who regarded Philadelphus as the 
creator of the Alexander cult at Alexandria, against that of Kaerst and 
Kornemann, who mainly on the evidence of Pseudo-Callisthenes (III. 33) 
wished to credit the foundation of the cult to Soter. Kaerst and Kornemann 
nevertheless were right, and one more proof is given of the historical elements 
interwoven into the romance of Alexander. Though we need not accept its 
statement that the priesthood of Alexander was instituted by the will of 
Alexander himself, that assertion was not very wide of the mark. The Hibeh 
papyri fortunately include several date-formulae earlier than P. Petrie I. 24 ; 
and not only in 110. 40 and 44 dated inthe 12th and 13th years of Philadelphus, 
and 97. 3 dated in the 7th (or 4th) year of the same reign, but even in 84 
(2) which was actually written in the 5th year of Soter, i.e. about B.C. 300, - 
is the mention of the year of the reigning monarch followed by the entry 
ed iepews A rod B. It is true that this priest is in no instance stated to be 
the priest of Alexander; but even if it were not known independently that 
the cult of Ptolemy Soter at Alexandria was first introduced in the reign of 
Philopator (cf. Otto, of. cz¢. p. 180), no official cult but that of Alexander could 
have obtained such importance in Egypt by B.C. 300 that it was unnecessary 
to specify the deity to which ‘the priest’ was attached. It was only when, in 
some period between the 13th year and Daisius (i.e. Phamenoth or Pharmouthi 
probably) of the 15th year of Philadelphus (cf 110. 44 and 99. 3), that sovereign 
associated the cult of his sister and himself with the worship of Alexander, that 
a more precise description of the greatest official priesthood was ordained, and 
the brief formula of the early documents took the first step in the direction 
of those interminable lists of priesthoods of deified Ptolemies which finally 
exhausted the patience of the later Ptolemaic scribes. Since Arsinoé Phila- 
delphus died in the 15th year of her brother’s reign before the month of Pachon 
(cf. the date of the Mendes stele quoted by Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des 
Lagides, I, p. 180), the association of the gods Adelphi with the cult of 
Alexander may well have been one of the many divine honours paid to her 
by Philadelphus after her death, although the evidence does not exclude the 


possibility that the association took place one or two years previously. To the 
interval between 99, written in Daisius of the 15th year, and dem. P. Louvre 2424, 
written in Athur of the 19th (if Revillout’s decipherment of it is to be trusted), 
is to be assigned the creation of the canephorate of Arsinoé; and the institution 
of this priesthood at any rate is no doubt closely connected with her death. 

Besides their new evidence for the existence of the priesthood of Alexander 
in B.C. 300, the date of the association of the gods Adelphi with Alexander, 
and the date of the institution of the canephorate of Arsinoé Philadelphus, 
the Hibeh papyri also serve to limit the date at which the association of the 
gods Euergetae in the Alexander cult took place to the 3rd, 4th, or 5th years of 
Euergetes ; cf. 145 with 171 and our remarks on no. (21). 

In the following Table the names of the priests and priestesses are given 
in Greek (in the genitive case) when the evidence for them is in that language, 
but in Roman characters when the evidence is.derived from demotic documents. 
It is often difficult to recognize a Greek name in its demotic form, even when 
that is correctly deciphered ; few, therefore, of the names which rest on the 
evidence of demotic are likely to be quite correct, while many of them are 
obviously wrong. Where, as in all the demotic and some of the Greek papyri 
which mention the priests, the months are given on the Egyptian calendar, the 
king’s years may be either ‘revenue’ or ‘regnal’ years (cf. App. ii.); since 
most of the names of priests are derived from private documents, it is probable 
that the ‘regnal’ years largely predominate, but only in one case, no. (27), 
can it be determined with certainty which of the two years is meant. Where, 
as in most of the Greek evidence, the months are given on the Macedonian 
calendar, the presumption is that the king’s years are calculated on a Macedonian 
system, which we are disposed to regard as identical with or approximating to 
the system employed in reckoning regnal years; cf. our remarks on (27). 
In converting the dates into years on the Julian calendar, the date B.C. which 
is probably implied if the year in question is regnal is placed in brackets after 
the date implied if the year is a revenue one. The priesthoods were annual 
offices, though sometimes renewable for a second term, e.g. nos. (25) and 
(26). Probably the year in question was the official Macedonian year, whatever 
that may have been. It is noticeable that inconsistencies with regard to the 
dates of particular priests are rare (cf. nos. (21) and (32)), and the evidence forms 
several consistent series covering a number of consecutive years, e.g. from the 
8th to the 13th years of Euergetes. This strongly indicates that the priest’s year 
of office coincided with the year (Macedonian or regnal, rather than revenue, as 
we think) employed in dating the great majority of the documents from which 

the list of priests is drawn up. 





Year of 

reign. Buc: Priests. 
Formula: éq’ tepéws. 
5 301-0 (?) Meveddov rod Aapaxov. 

(2) |7(or 4)| 279-8 (278-7) Alip|vaifoly tov ’Am[olAA@. 


or 282-1 (281-0) 

12 Wao (27 9=2 Nia Mleesmem cen ee tov Kad )Auunoovs. 
13 273-2 (272-1) Neal... .. Tod .. .|oxA€ovs. 
lost 300-271 PiAlokov rod Vrovdatov. 

Formula: 颰 tepéws "AdegdvSpou Kat Oedv “Adedpav. 

15 271-0 (270-69) | TlarpéxAov tov Tdrpwvos. 

Formula = 

a [Tépas i oe 
ech hes T]od Avkivov. 
Rubs ae Md yovos. 
"Aptioxov [Tod .J.€... 
Anpovixns THs Pidrwvos. 

28 258-7 

29 257-6 

19 267-6 | omitted. 
(266-5) Aristomache daughter of Aristomachus. 
a1 265-4 We Democrites (?) son of Asclepiodotus (?). 
(264-3) Cassandra (?) daughter of Axipolus (?). 
22 264-3 | [le€Aomros Tod ’Are€avopov. 
(263-2) Mrjovorparns THs Tevoapxov. 
23 263-2 Kweéov rod oe, 
(262-1) 1 cae age etelas | rhs TloAepoxparovs. 
24, 262-1 | ‘Aptorovixou rod [lepiAdov. 
(261-0) Xapéas tis ’Amiov. 
20-27 267-58 | lost. 

ed tepéws “AdeédvSpou Kal Oedy “AdeApav 
| kavnpdpou "Apowdns Prdadێdgou. 


Year of 

(15) | 33 
(16) | 34 
(17) | 36 
(18) | 27-39 
(19) | 31-39 
(20) 2 
(21); 3 
(22) | 4(?) 
G3) 5 
(24) | 8 
(25) | 9 
(26) IO 
(27) Er 
(28) 12 
(29) | 13 
(30) | 15? 
(31) | 17 
(32) 20 


| Aétus (?) son of Apollonius. 

Demetria daughter of Dionysius. 

f Neonronepov 708 Dpr€iov. 

| ’Apowons tis NeuxoAdov. 

| Apinatus (?) son of Apinatus (?). 
eeXen is THs Mevveov. 

| Paractuseee a te | rob Aa... ovos, 
Marédas ths ’Avad . . Kadovs. 

Meytorns [Ths ....... ] 

Euergetes I. 

| TAnmoA€uov Tob "Apramdrov. 

UroAepatéos THs Oviwvos. 

| ’Apxe[Adov son of Demus (?). 
Arsinoé rijs ToAewoxpdrov¢s). 

\ Archelaus son of Demus(?). 
Arsinoé daughter of Polemocrates. 

ep tepéws "Ade§dvSpou Kai Oedv *AdeApav 
kat Qedv Edvepyetav 
Kavnpdpou “Apowons PrdadeAgou, 

Formula a) 

Ye ‘ApiotoBovAou tov A.oddrov. 
Aan TiN] Sie groves ec) lobe eos ] 
|, ’Ovo[u\agrov Tob [Ivpyavos. 
erie THs Kryouxdeous. 
{ "AToAA@vidov Tod Mocylwvos. 
Mevexparetas Tis Pidppovos. 
AtoXAwvidov Tov Mooxiwvos. 
Mevexparelas rhs Piddypovos 70 B (éros). 
Le LYeAevKov Tov AvTt... ov. 
"Ac|raclas Tis "AOnria[vo!s. 
| oa ee TOU EvBara. 
Srparovixns Tijs KadAvavaxtos. 
| LYwotBlov tov Arockdpov. 
Bepevixyns ths TroAepaiov. 
| Hellenicus (?) son of Hellenicus (?). 
Socia (?) daughter of Licotas (?). 
| Menneas (?) son of Menoetius (?). 
Berenice daughter of Aétius (?). 
o Actitos (?). 
. daughter of Alexilaos (?). 

B bea 


No. Year of 

Bepevixns ris Tv0ayyéXov. 
. THS Xapttwvos. 

BIG: Priests. 

(33) 21 2219-6 | TaXéorov tov Pidiotiwvos. 
(226-5) Bepevixns tis DworTrL0s. 

(34) 2,2, 226-5 | "Ade €uxparous Tod Oeoyevous. 
(225-4) Bepevixns ths KadAcavaxtos. 

(35) 24 224-3 | Alcetas (?) son of Tasos (?). 
(223-2) Dionysia daughter of Silas (?). 

(36 25 223-2, ! Awo.béov Tot A piston. 

3) ne 40. 

4) 110. 44. The figure 3 in the number of the year is not quite certain ; cf. 
note ad loc. 

(5) 80. 23. 

(6) 99. 3 and 128. 

(7) Dem. P. Louvre 2424 (Athur). Cf. Revillout, Chrest. dém. pp. 231 sqq., 
Rev. Egypt. I. p. 5. The omission of the priest of Alexander is very 
curious, and is due to an error of some kind. 

(8) Dem. P. Lond. (Revillout, Rev. Egypi. I. p. 6). ‘Democrites’ may be 
Anpoxpatyns or Anpoxpiros, and ‘ Axipolus’ is obviously wrong. 

(9) 92. 3; cf. P. Petrie III. 52 (a). 3, where in 1. 2 (@rovs) xB, 1. 3 TéAonjos, and 
1. 5 rhs Telvodpxov should be read. 

(10) 88. 2 and Hibeh unpubl. pap. ; cf. 88, introd. 

(11) 85. 3 and 150. 

(12) 184. The papyrus was written while the vids was associated with Phila- 
delphus, i.e. after Phaophi 11 of the 19th year when Philadelphus was 
still reigning alone (100, introd.), and not later than the 27th, in which 
year the vids disappeared from the date-formula (Rev. Laws i. 1). 184, 
therefore, belongs to the 20th, 23rd, 25th, 26th or, less probably, the 

. 27th year. 

(13) 94. 3. 

(14) 95. 2; cf. dem. P. Leyden 379 (Revillout, Rev. Egypt. I. p. 13; Krall, Sizz. 
Wien. Ak. cv. p. 357). Revillout and Krall give the name of the 


canephorus correctly, and call the priest of Alexander Antimachus son 
of Cebes. Ke Snros does not, however, suit the traces of letters in 95. 2, 
though -ros is possible ; cf. note ad /oc. 

(15) Dem. P. Louvre 2433 (Revillout, Chrest. dém. pp. 241 sqq., Rev. Egypt. 
I. p. 6). In P. Petrie III. 42 F (a), written probably in this year, occurs 
the earliest extant example of rod dvros and ris ovons in place of the 
names of the priest and canephorus. 

(16) 98. 7. 

(17) The name of the canephorus is preserved in P. Petrie I. 22 (1). 2 and dem. 
P. Louvre 2443, that of the priest of Alexander only in the latter 
(Revillout, Chrest. dém. pp. 246 sqq., Rev. Egypt. I. p. 6). Apinatus is 
not likely to be right, Revillout deciphered the canephorus as Atis 
daughter of Mennas. 

(18) P. Petrie III. 56 (2) (= Rev. Laws p. 187). The year is lost (Otto wrongly 
assigns it to the 27th), but is not earlier than the 27th, in which the 
formula [ItoAcuatov rod UroAeuatov Swrhpos was introduced (Rev. Laws 
i. 1). The papyrus therefore belongs to the 27th, 3oth, 31st, 32nd, 35th, 
37th, 38th, or 39th years. 

(19) P. Petrie III. 54 (a). 2. The papyrus is later than the goth year and 
probably belongs to the 31st, 35th, 38th, or 39th years rather than to 
the 32nd or 37th; cf. Smyly’s note. 

(20) P. Petrie III. 43 (2). ii. 1 ef saep.; cf. dem. P. Louvre 2438 (Revillout, 
Chrest. dém. pp. 257 sqq., Rev. Egypt. I. p. 7), where the names were 
deciphered as Tlepolemos or Triporimos son of Altibios, and Ptolemaea 
daughter of Theon or Thian. 

(21) 145 preserves the names ’Apye(Adov and [oAenoxparov¢s) ; cf. for the rest the 
names of the priests in the 4th year in dem. P. Louvre 2431 (Revillout, 
Chrest. dém. pp. 265 sqq., Rev. Egypt. I. p. 7), where they have been 
deciphered as Archelaos or Alecros son of Demos and Arsinoé daughter 
of Polemocrates. 145 was written probably in Artemisius, which then 
corresponded approximately to Pauni (cf. App. i); the demotic papyrus 
is dated in Mecheir. It is possible to refer the two dates to the same 
year of office on the hypothesis that the Greek papyrus is dated by 
the regnal, the demotic by the revenue year; cf. App ii. Or, if the 3rd 
and 4th years are really distinct, and there is no error in the demotic, 
Archelaus and Arsinoé may have remained in office for two years, like 
the priests of the 9th and roth years. 

(22) Dem. P. Louvre 2431 ; cf. note on (21). 

(23) 171. 


(24) 89.2 and Hibeh unpubl. pap. ‘Ovopaxpirov is a possible alternative for 
’‘Ovoydorov ; cf. 89, introd. 

(25) Inscr. Canop. 1. Cf. the next note. : 

(26) P. Petrie III. 5 (a). 2, 6(a). 17, &c.; it is uniformly stated in these documents 
that Apollonides and Menecratia held office for the second year. 

(27) P. Petrie III. 58 (c). 7 (introd. p. 8) and 58 (d). 7. These two papyri are 
dated in the 11th regnal and 12th revenue year (cf. p. 359), and are 
therefore free from the uncertainty attaching to dates in which the two 
systems of dating are not distinguished. Since regnal years so far as 
can be judged (cf. p. 367) begin or may begin about a year later than 
revenue years having the same numbers, and the conventional system of 
converting early Ptolemaic dates into years of the Julian calendar 
probably applies only to the revenue years, we assign these two papyri 
to B.C. 236-5. not to B.C. 237-6. A comparison of the evidence con- 
cerning Seleucus and Aspasia, who are known to have held office in the 
11th regnal and 12th revenue years, with that concerning Eucles and 
Stratonice, no (28), is instructive. There are no less than six instances 
in which the latter are mentioned in wills of the 12th year (excluding 
those cases in which the figure is lost), and seeing that different priests 
were in office during part at any rate of the 12th revenue year, it is very 
unlikely that the 12th year in connexion with Eucles and Stratonice was 
a revenue year, especially as none of these six papyri is concerned with 
revenues and the months, where their names are preserved, are given 
on the Macedonian, not the Egyptian, calendar. Whether the king’s 
years reckoned on the Macedonian system are distinct from the Egyptian 
regnal years is uncertain (cf. p. 366); but even if the two systems are 
independent and the 12th year in those six instances is not identical with 
the twelfth regnal year, the circumstance that the priests mentioned in 
them are different from those who are known to have held office in the 
11th regnal year and 12th revenue year suggests that the 12th Macedonian 
year corresponded much more closely to the 12th regnal year than to the 
12th revenue year. 

(28) (B. Petrie 11D: 11..105.97, 035(2).o1 tana 5. O16 Tom cre: 

(29) P. Petrie III. 18. 1 and 55. 1; cf. dem. P. Marseille correctly deciphered by 
Revillout, Rev. Egypt. 1. p. 134. Since the 12th year in (28) is probably 
a regnal, not a revenue year, the fact that the priests in (29) are different 
from those in (28) indicates that the 13th year in (29) also is a regnal 
year; cf. our remarks on (27). 

(30) Dem. P. Louvre 2429 (Revillout, Chrest. dém. pp. 273 sqq., Rev. Egypt. 


I. p. 8). The grandfather’s name of the priest of Alexander (‘ Euphra- 
toros, Revillout) seems to be given, but we suspect an error either in 
the text or the decipherment. Otto (of. cz¢. p. 177) proposes ‘EAAdvixos 
‘EdAarikov tod Evdpavopos. The year is not quite certain, being lost in 
the demotic contract and restored from the Greek docket. Otto prefers 
(érovs) is to (érovs) ve, but in the facsimile ve is more suitable. Neither 
‘Socia’ nor ‘ Licotas’ can be right. 

(31) Cf. three demotic papyri in the British Museum (Revillout, Chrest. dém. 
p. cxxxvi, and Rev. Egypt. 1. pp. 15, 119, and 135), and dem. P. Berl. 
3089 (Spiegelberg, dem. P. Berl. p. 6). Revillout gives the forms Mennas, 
son of Menetios, and Berenice (twice ; elsewhere Cleonica and Cerdica) 
daughter of Atis (or Adaeus), Spiegelberg Mnis son of Mntids (the last s 
being doubtful) and Brniga (i. e. Berenice) daughter of 3Atis (Aétios ?). 

(32) In dem. P. Louvre 2425 (Chrest. dém. pp. 278 sqq., Rev. Egypt. I. p. 8), 
dated in Mesore of the 20th year, Revillout gives the priests’ names 
as Calistos son of Philistion and Berenice daughter of Sosipatros. These 
persons are obviously the same as the priests of the 21st year, known 
from P. Petrie III. 21. (a). 1, 5, (0). 1, 6, (g). 29, as was pointed out by 
Wilcken (Gotz. gel. Anz. 1895, p. 143), who in P. Petrie I. 27 (=III. 21 (4) 
proposed to insert rd 8 (éros) after Pircotiwyos, but wrongly ; cf. Smyly’s 
note on III. 21 (4). The Greek documents therefore, unlike those 
mentioned in connexion with (26), give no indication that the 21st was 
the second year in which Galestes and Berenice held office, and another 
demotic papyrus (dem. P. Lond., Chrest. dém. p. 131, and Kev. Egypt. 
I. p. 118), which mentions them, is dated in Epeiph of the 21st year. 
Hence we think the attribution of a second year of office to Galestes and 
Berenice is erroneous. The conflict of evidence with regard to them can 
be reconciled by the hypothesis that the 20th is a regnal, the 21st a revenue 
year ; cf. no. (21). But we are more inclined to suspect an error in the 
text or decipherment of dem. P. Louvre 2425, especially as Revillout from 
another demotic papyrus in London (Aegypt. Zeztschr. 1880, p. 111) gives 
Actitos and a daughter of Alexilaos as priests in the 20th year. 

(33) Cf. note on (32). 

(34) P. Petrie III. 19. (c). 1, 9, (f). 9, &c. and several demotic papyri. 
P. Petrie III. 21 (g). 1-3, where the priests’ names are omitted, also 
belongs to this year; cf. note on no. (36). The demotic names were 
deciphered by Revillout as Alexicrates son of Diogenes or Theogenes and 
Berenike daughter of Cleonicus, and by Spiegelberg as ;Algsigrts son of 
Thugns and Berenike daughter of Griangs. 


(35) Dem. P. Lond. (Revillout, Aegypz. Zeitschr. 1880, p. 112), where the father’s 
name of the priest of Alexander is given as Ias6u. 

(36) 90. 2 and an unpublished Tebtunis papyrus; cf. note on 90. 2. The 
names occur in dem. P. Berl. 3096, where they were deciphered by 
Revillout (Rev. Egypt. IV. p. 152) as Dositheos son of Dositheos and 
Berenike daughter of Ph.. tim... krs, by Spiegelberg (dem. P. Berl. p. 6) 
as Tusitus (Dosithoos) son of Tripirus (Tryphilos) and Berenike daughter 
of Phitimigrs (or Khitimigrs). In P. Petrie III. 21 (g), where the editors 
read in Il. 1-3 (érovs) ke [eq tepéws] ItoAe[patov rob... 1... lov Ade£avdpou 
kal OeGv "Ader. kal OeGv Evepy. xavnp. “Apo. Piri. Tys..... THs “AdreLdvdpov 

. , we read (érous) KB [éq’ tepéws| rod dyt[os] év ’A[AcEavdpel|ar “AAeEavdpou 
k.T.A. Karn. “Apo. Pir. ths ovons ev "AAe~avdpeiar. This protocol therefore 
provides another early example of the omission of the priests’ names; cf. 
no. (15). 
(37) P. Petrie II. 25 (2). 5. 

ND Tes 


ayabés 1. 3; 5. 90; 14. 36. 

ayav 3. 48; 7. 7. 

ayew 4. 33 (?), 53: 

dyopevew 14. 74. 

adypotxos 6. 35. 

dyevuav 6, 37. 

dyaviterba 14. 166. 

adew 18. 21, 25. 

ddixety 15. 32. 

adtkos 2. 8. 

advvatos 5. 80. 

dei l.g; 8. 7. s 

dndns 2. 5. 

*AOnvaios 15. 39, 91, 108, 139. 

"Ann 6. 37- 

aOdeiv 10. 4. 

adégos 4. 17; 15. 35. 

Alas 9. 2. 

aidnp 11. 10. 

aipew 15, 104. 

aicxuvew 18. 31. 

airia 1. 10, 

Airadds 13, 18. 

axpatew 15. 82. 

dkorts ‘7. 53 (?). 

dxovey 8. 24; 4.10; 5. 89; 
P2575 1G; 

axpiBas 5. 16. 

axpoTodis 14. 49. 

adyewds 3. 28. 

adndeva 17. 3. 

dvia 1. 2. 

ada 1. 8; 3. 42, 43; 4. 19; 
6. 40; 7.96; 14. 88, 93; 
15. 49 ef saep.; 16. 50; 
17. 21. 

a@dos 1. 5, 23; 6.9; 14. 60; 
163.54, 95, §92,,047,,102); 
16. 26. dros 1. 10; 15. 
99; 16. 29, 35. 

a\dotpios 18. 2; 17. 22. 

aApupos 16. 42. 

adoyos 16. 43. 

’Adgeids 3. 39. 

dpapravew 6, 141. 

dpaptia 6. 131, 132. 

andi 8. 6. 

apdiyvos, 8, 16. 

dudorepykns 8. 8. 

appe 8. 24. 

ay 3..10;.29; 6.9, 22; 13. 
EG; 16. 7, Ol, aga: 

avaykafe 15. 95. 

dvayopevew 14, 31, 42. 

avaykaios 6. 33; 17. 27. 

avaxtopov 4, 70. 

dvadioxew 17. 12, 23. 

avaddwpa 17, 1. 

avavdpia 15. 89. 

avaé 3. 53. 

ava&wos 15. 107. 

avaotpepev 6. 8. 

dvdpetos 13. 15, 16, 20, 22. 

aveireiv (avepetv) 14. 40. 

avepos 7. 50. 

dvéxew 4. 2(?); 15. 31. 

amp 1.7, 16; 4. 8,55; 18. 
i) 142.36, 049; 106); 15. 
38, 91, 107. 

avO@peros 2. 6; 5. 14, 505 
6.405 7..43, 453 LZ. 16. 

avoa §. 78, 

avti 14, 75, 78. 

avrtAapBavew 15, 44. 

avridéyev 10, 35. 

’Avripar 12. 6. 

dras 1. 16; 3: 2: 5. 843) 6: 
B57 L433) 01b: 28: 

arépxerOa 6. 13. 

dmeva 6. 12. 

amhovs 10. 13; 17. 29. 
PROG Sede ES: 

ané 18. 30; 15. 114. 

anoyryyookew 15, IIT, 

arddekis 15. 85. 

arod.dva 6. 7. 

aroOvnoxew 14. 34. 

arowa 8, 20. 

arroxanetv 15. 4, 7. 

*Ardd\Aov 5. 20; 6. 35. 

amomAnpoov 4. 6. 

arootepety 14. 86. 

arorpexew 6. 10. 

aropepew 6. 6. 

aroxpnoba 15, 102. 

anwbev 10. 35. 

dpa 3. 21; 4.10; 10. 3. 

"Apyetos 8. 24. 

dpern 15. 87. 

“Apns 5. verso I. 

dpiOpety 6. 31. 

dppovia 18. 16, 21, 22; 18. 2. 

dppoukos 18. 4, 27. 

apros 6. 6. 

apxnyetis 15. 131. 

dpwyés 8. 52. 

datetos 1. 14. 

agpadea 15, 46, 103, 117. 



agdarros 16. 32. 

av 6. 88. 

avOaipetros 10. 2. 

avdés 18. 34 (?). 

avéavey 18. 7. 

avpiov 6, 24. 

avravrou 1. 15. 

avrouaros 15. 114. 

airés 1. 29)3 2.420; (3.1975 
5, 7/7, OL; 105); 0°6. 3hQ 2 
SACP. = O-eT On Lael 2), Lo. 
17; 307 14:225):) 15.60; 
86, 105, 105; 16: 36; 

avrov 18. 7, 9; 17. 21, 26. 

apidpvew 10. 19. 

agpuevaa 15. 35. 

"Ayatés 8. 9. 

"Axwdrevs 10. 5. 

ayGeoOa 17. 11. 

Badifey 12. 2; 15. 94. 

Baivey 5. verso 3; 7. 77. 

Bavavoos 1. 4. 

Bedrriov 1. 7. 

Bios 18. 23 (?). 

BXaoravew 10. 42. 

Brérew 4, 30. 

Boar 5. 9. 

Bookev 14. 15. 

BovdeoOa 4. 51; 6. 32, 42, 

Bovdevew 14. 145, 146; 15. 

BpaBevew 2. 7. 

Bpadivew 15. 39. 

Bpaxvs 1. 11, 15, 26. 

Bpdpmuos 7. 8. 

Bpords 4, 23. 

yavos 3. 40. 

yap 1.10, 23:5. 3.415)" 4.3, 
20, 53; 8. 4, 27, 87, 145, 
1595°7..00 5 1Op25 13: 
8, 175 U4. 8, 11,30; 58; 
178; 16. 13) 42 so16211: 
20; 17. 16; 

ye 1, 22 (ya); 3/255 65 3x5 
33, 42, 125; 17. 7. 

yeveors 186. 10. 


y7 16. 33, 40. 

yndew 1, 23. 

ynpackew 17. 6. 

yiyvesOac 1. 13; 4. 32, 46; 
6.255 109:;) 62.24, 25 5G 
25; 33, 373 18.5, 13. 

yAoooa 7. 45. 

ynows 8. 473 14. 11. 

yvoun 1. 6, 11; 14. 74, 80, 

ypavs 6. 20, 46, 59. 

yupvos 5. 65. 

wun G. 32, 42, 129 5 17.4. 

yovoedns 16. 42. 

Saipov 2. 6; 10. 37. 

daxvew 6. 92. 

Saveifev 17. 26. 

Saprvn 15. 32. 

decdds 18. 15, 16, 22. 

deipa 3. 9, 37- 

ew 1. 8, 24: 6. 105 7. Or; 
18. 73 U7 25. vdetaGae 

Sewos 14. 26, 143. 

deka 10. 22. 

déuas 3. 11. 

deEids 1. 10; 4. 58. 
tepos 1. 7. 

SeEvrepds 9. 3. 

Seomo 3. 45. 

Séorowa 8. 21. 

deandrns 6. 25; 12. 5. 

devdpo 6. 8, 19, 45. 

én L.. 125-6; 625.9) 45518: 

Anzeas 6. 40. 

Anpoxpiros 16. 14. 

djpos 14. 81. 

Oa 14. 51, $14 16.95, 51, 
39,90; 16.41; 17. 9,-10: 

dvaBarrcw 14. 29. 

diary 14. 46. 

ScaxeioOa 18. 28. 

duaAvors B. 26. 

diavora 15. 83. 

duareAciy 15. 109. 

didrovos 13. 19. 

Siapepew B. 41. 

Siahevyew 5. 14. 


duapopa 16. 40. 

ddovae 1, 155 52's 

Sux[ 5. 41. 

duxagew 6. 88. 

dikatos 18. 14. 

dixagryns 14. 48. 

dixn 1. 2:5 6.86); 14) 167. 
6:6 17. 25. 

Avovicora 14. 30. 

dudmep 17. 17. 

dios 8. 21. 

dure 5. 16; 15. 29, 39; 16. 

durdaows 17. 25. 
di@Beria 14. 96. 
doxey 7. 92, O55 “2. oe 
14, 8. 
Addores 13. 18. 
ddpos 7. 49. 
dovreia 15. 137. 
dpav 1. 19; 12. 14. 
Spaxuy 14. 75. 
divans 15. 92. 
dvvacGa 1. 11; 86. 
duvarés 5, 77. 
dv0 14. 78; 15. 96. 
dvonpis 1. 4. 
dvompakia 4. 22. 
duo tvxnua 5. II. 
dvotuyns 5. 21. 
Sopnua 4. 5. 

12 5° 18: 

eav 8. 20; 5.14; 15. 155. 

€yyovos 10. 36. 

eyxadurre (ێvex.) 2. 4. 

eykpatns 13. 14. 

eyxamatew 13. 6. 

€yxopuos 15, 132. 

eyo 1. 12 (eyov); 8.44; 4. 
19, 26, 27, 38.50 Gameouer 
sacp.; 6: LO es ‘Saepoy ae 
5, 6, 95 (cuiv); 10. 34; 
12. 4, 6, 85 18: pee: 
86; 15. 22, 57, 116; 

eGew 13. 21. 

el 6; 6.773 13.335)22 
26, 70;-15. 62, 157; 16: 
49; 17. 6. “cil ka Sages 
16. 34. 


eidevae 3. 443 5.16; 6. 12, 
38, 54; 7. 93; 18. 15, 

rie Gs as te eure 
12 (ciev), 17, 40; 5. 14 ef 
Sze Gn 17, 35, 80, Ot; 
1333 7-30; 8. 19 (€oxe); 
10. 39; 13. 4,9, 20; 14. 
19 ef Saep.; 15. 41 ef 
sacp.; 16. 28, 20, 39; 17. 
9, 10. 

eikn 13. 6. 

eixds 15, 42. 

eimep 3. 43. 

eipnun 6. 25. 

eis (es) 1.7; 2.55; 5: 23, 90; 
624535), wl 7. 

ets 1. 8,14; 8.10; 4. 35. 

eicaxovew 1, 12. 

eiorevat B. 31. 

eicopav 3. 20. 

eira 6. 17. 

etre 1. 4. 

ees S425 6.45; 10. 34; 
15. 42, 80; 16. 28, 29, 42. 

éxatepos 17. 13. 

exxnpvocew 15, 130. 

exrAnooew 4, II. 

exrrobev 8. 33. 

exmpacoew 3. 32. 

edacowy 14. 90; 15. 97. 

edeyxew 10. 6. 

edevOepia 15. 122, 138. 

edixtos 3. 57- 

eXicoew (eid.) 10. 28. 

edxew 17, 25. 

‘EAdds 5. 90. 

"EAAny 6. 39; 15. 33. 

eAris 15. 135. 

enavtov 15. 121. 

epos 4.3; 6. 32, 53- 

epmedos 8. 7. 

eptrodav 4. 57. 

eppve 18. 2 (?). 

ev is 2,6) TE, 255 3. 90; 5. 
32/76. 913 13> nas) 14. 
2p oA Lb 50, OO; 102, 
108; 16. 24, 40. 

évaiptos (?) 10. 36. 

evdety 3. 56. 

evdobev 6. 34. 

eveivat 1. 1, 5 (€v0). 

evOade 5. 18, 19. 

evOovoray 13. 29. 

evvuxos 3. 37. 

éevravoa 6. 6; 14. 38. 

evteAns 14. 135. 

evrds 3. 25. 

efapaptavery 15. 34. 

e€anatav 2. 8. 

efetvaa 14. 95. 

eferrety 13. 31. 

e€epxerOa 6. 5. 

e&@ 6. 45. 

erravievat 7. 46. 

érei 4. 20; 15. 116; 16. 40. 

eretOn 6. 110; 14. 47. | 

émetta 1. 25; 6.58; 7. QI. 

erepxeoOa 13. 1. 

ereparay 12. 6, 

erexev B. 13. 

ennv 7. 7. 

emnpeagew 14. 177. 

ext 3. 39; 6. 38,95; 7. 48; 
133 205-15; 93, 120. 

erideréts 18. 2. 

exOupew 5, 73. 

exiotacGa 15. 63. 

émitupBios 10. 21. 

"Exixappos 1. 13. 

émos 1. 8, 17. 

eperOa 8, 30. 

epiew 15, 141. 

epwvus 9. 7. 

épxecOar 8. 10; 6.1453; 13. 
2h Lbs 126. 

epwrav 12. 2; 18. 33; 17. 5. 

érepos 18. 8, 11; 15. 96. 

entia. LO Only O.n2, 33 °5 
13. 33. 

erupos 7. 48, 

ed 3. 33-. 

evaperros 15. 26 (?). 

evdoxipety 17. 3. 

evepyeoia 17. 8. 

evdvs 5. 88. 

evkaipos 15. 85. 

evAaBera 15. go. 

evAdoyelv 5. OI. 

edvous 8. 26; 4. 26. 


Evpuridns 7. 9. 

evpioxew 5. 79. 

eUrporros 2. 6. 

evruxns 5. 14. 

evyn 4. 21. 

egiorava 15. O61. 

epddiov 5. 92. 

éxew 1. 5, 10 (jxor); 4. 3; 
6. 9, 35, 40; 7.79; 18. 
rte BWR Is pee IY /6 17 l 

exOpds 1. 2. 

Zevs 6.255.035 8. 92); 9. 8. 
(ndorumia 5. 82. 

Cppia 15, 21. 

GHUID wos 4 25 die Be 
(gov 16. 58; 17. 28. 

7 14. 42, 90; 15. 96, 97, 
RIS ALF 106% . 

iGo 7. 

7Bn 14. 38. 

Wyewovia 15. III. 

jon 6. 24; 8. 32. 

noovn 4, 57. 

700S\ 1. O45 105 30:08 4. td: 

nkew 6. 120. 

nkeora 15. 41, 57. 

nucts 5. 68, 69; 6. 82, 87; 
15. gt (I. nO npeis), 99, 

nyepa (635 jie 

npetepos 6. 46; 15. 65. 

‘HpakAns 5. 15; 6. 83, 10r. 

jooov 6. OI. 

novxatew 15. 89. 

Oadacca 16. 25, 28, 36. 

Oapoety 15. 49. 

Gavpage 13. 1. 

Gavpaotos 16. 32, 38. 

Geiov 16. 30. 

Geios 8. 31. 

Gcoforidns 14. 28, 41, 73. 

Geds 5. 18, 20, 22, 49; 6. 37; 
15; 38, 133), L4t- 

Ocpar, 2. 14. 

Oeparevew UY He 

GepporvAnor 13. 18. 

Gewpety 138. 8. 


Oewpnrikds 13. 9. 

Ounoxew 3. 32; 4.24; 7.53. 
Ovpa B. 4, 45. 

évpav 3. 23. 

idios 13. 9, 33; 16. 117. 
idov 6. 49. 

ievae 8. 23. 

iepos 5. 17. 

‘Iépov 17. 4. 

ixavds 15. 81. 

wa 7. 48; 15. 87. 
inmevs 14. 75, 83, 129. 
immorokorns 14. 77. 

isos 10. 31. tows 16. 63. 
igrope 3. I. 

ioxve 13. 12. 

KGL oks Dl, Lie 

xadarep 16. 24. 

cabnxew 15. 56. 

xabjoba 15. 58 (?). 

kabiotavaa 14. 30; 15. 29, 
40, 68. 

katpos 1. 25 ; 
63, 127. 

xairot 14, 100. 

kaxés 1. 5, 223 8.30, 42, 475 
4, 29, 56. xaxa@s 6. 41; 
13. 15; 15. 31. 

kadetv 5, 213 18. 27. 

KaAXipous 3. 39. 

KaA\orevew 4, 7. 

kadés 1. 3; 5. 5, 23. 
Avoros 14. 27. 

cata 1. 14, 

catadeeatepov 15. 94. 

xara\apBavew 14. 49. 

xaradeinew 14, 25; 15. 77. 

caratpiBew 13. 23 (?). 

xaterreiyew 15. 64. 

catepyaterOa 18, 6. 

catnyopew 18. 6. 

caroxely 5. 18. 

xedevery 15. 97. 

xevds 3. 34. 

xevrpov 1. 5. 

xepdos 17. 7. 

xndevew 10. 10. 

xnpvypa 14, 28. 

7. 44; 15. 43, 



knpv& 14. 31. 
kivduvevewy 15. 98. 
xivduvos 10. 3; 15. 109. 
kirads 18. 32. 
kXaiew 6. 44. 
krewds 4. 8 (?). 
KAcopevns 14, 47. 
kdvew 4. 64. 
xowos 15. 122. 
kowovety 3. 38. 
kopicew 6. 6, 59. 
kopmos 7. 8. 

képn 5. 77; 12. 7. 
koopos 16. 36. 
koupos 8. 44. 
Kpatiotos 5, 22. 
kpive 16. 59. 
kpiots 15. 64. 
Kpoicos 5. 28. 
kpuntos 10. 41. 
kupwos 8. 50. 
kodvew 6. II. 

AapBavew B. 18, 30, 51, 573 
14. 59, 198; 17. 24. 

Aapmpos 5. verso 2. 

AavOavew 13. 3. 

Aeyer 1, 2 ef Sacp.; 8. 9, 32, 
36, 85,97; 7. 76; 18. 3, 
7, 13, 28; 14. 40, 148; 
7 eG ek: 

Aeimew 7. 25. 

diay 8. 41. 

ABaverds 16. 30. 

AiooesOa 3. 52. 

AoyiterOa 15. 37, 57- 

Adyos 8. 20; 4. 3,18; 7. 48. 

Aurety 1. 18. 

paxpav 15, 30. 

paxpoddyos 1, II. 

pada 10. 18. paddrov 17. 11. 
padiora 14. 4; 15. 37, 79; 
16. 9. 

pavOavey 1, 16; 4, 18. 

pavtis 4. 54. 

Mapadorv 15. 108. 

parnv 10. 4. 

paxerOa 14. 25. 

Hayy 12. 5. 

peyas 4.56, 65; 14. 46; 15. 
144; 16. 32, 42. 

Medeaypos 4. 5. 

pedrew 14. 84; 15. 73. 

pedos 18. 13, 32. 

peuperba 7. 6. 

pev 1. 103 6. 11, 46, 58; 
18. 5 ef saepu; A475; 
167, 178; 15. 54, 149; 
16. 11; 17. 23. per ovv 
15; 116516. 95 ae 

pépos 18. 10; 16. 35. 

peorés 5. 78. 

pera 15. 97, 104. 

peraBodrn 15. 43. 

petpios 13. 11. 

pexpe 14. 37. 

wn 3. 20, 343; 6. 48, 63, 
159; 15. 47, 62, 89, 117; 

pnde 15. 114. 

pydeis 14. go. 

pnderore 15. 51. 

pnbets 7. 5; 15. 32, 51, 59, 
WL > 16534. 

pyre 8. 27, 28; 15. 90, 95. 

nATnp 3. 53- 

pnxarn 6. 133. 

puxpods 5. 92; 15.9; 18. 7. 

pupetoOa 15. 56. 

pucbopopeiv 14. 76. 

puabopopia 14, 24 ef Saep. 

prnen 15. 136. 

povos 1. 8; 8. 29; 5. 17. 

hoppy 7. 29. 

povorxn 13. 19. 

vat 17. 6, 

veavioxos 14. 33. 

veos 3. 58. vewrepos 15. 79. 

vepednyepeta 9. 8. 

vy 6. 37. 

vuxav 5. 90; 14. 81. 

virpov 16. 31. 

vd8os 14. 6, 9, 13, 395 44. 

vopapyns 5. 81. 

vonitey 5. 13; 6. 27; 10. 
31 (?); 16. 87, 112. 

vouipos 14, 7. 

vopos 14. 14, 28. 


Novupnuos 6. 7. 

vuxtepos 3. Q. 

viv 6. 16, 19; 8. 38, 433 
024715. 40, 73, 150. 

Eévos 1. 3. 

oBords 14, 76, 78, 79. 

doe 1. 9 ef sacp.; 3. 26, 38; 
6. 4; 14. 33, 40. 

édés 5. 8; 6. 33. 

dduppa 8. 48. 

oCos 5. verso I. 

dOovvexa 7. 93. 

olecOa 14, 87. 

oikeiv, oikovpervn 5. 16. 

oiketos 13. 2; 15. 84. 

oixia 5. 79; 6. 124, 159. 

oikos 8. 25. 

oixritew 10. 16. 

oxve 14, 92. 

oxro 14. 78. 

dABws B. 134. 

dAtyos 17. 23. 

"Odvpma 5. 13. 

époyerns 16. 28. 

dpodoyev 6, 98. 

dpowos 16. 23, 24; 18. 4. 
dpoiws 10. 32; 14. 42. 

dpoguros 16. 27. 

dvopa 5, 8g. 

ots 15. 42. 

Gras in £3 4. 32; 6. 33, 
38; 14. 89. 

épav 3. 21, 27; 5.23; 15. 

épyn 17. 15. 

ép0as 2. 7; 15. 103. 

épi¢ew 10. I. 

éppav 4. 4. 

dps 7. 51. 

dppaves 14. 8, 32, 130. 

Coplet wOrwia. (EO. 6. 70); 
Gar an;, 107395 1214; 
TS rr, 62, 297; 14.32"; 
15. 53,70. 

doos 4. 13, 36; 7.92; 16. 

dors 13. 28. 

6aticouv 15. 

drav 4. 27; 14. 31; 17. 27. 

dre 6. 78; 13.4; 14. 33, 40; 
163275 Li il. 

oTpivew 3. 22. 

ov, ok 1. 8, 23; 3.55; 4. 

ES G02 ef sacp. 1. 40); 
TORTIE PLO 7 lls Eo 
14. 18 ef saep.; 16. 39, 433 
LS> ro; 

ovdé 8. 10; 7. 30; 13. 31. 

ovdeis 1. 17 ; 14. 168. 

ovdeis &. 423 6. 11, 41, 56. 

ovxovv 12. 4. 

ovv 15. 116; 16. 9, 34; 18. 

ovtatew 7. 47. 

ovre 18. 7, 8, 16, 22; 14. 7; 
16. 29-32, 52; 17. 18. 

ovris 6. 18. 

ovros 1.550, 12, 2215 6: 17, 
SQ; 6:5 ef sacp.; 8525 ; 
13s 23 Se 5s, 10, 12, 
2314. 3°7cF saep.; 16. 
BES) P20 +) 1G. 30reLsatO, 
13. ovroci 14, 73. 

oto, o’tws 15. 30, 61; 16. 

opeidery 12, 8; 14. 99. 

oxeTds 7. 47. 

oxrew 4. 41. 

maGos 3. 15. 

madeverv 15, 82. 

matdiov B. 43, 52. 

mraiew 13. 29. 

mais 8.54; 5. 21; 15. 80. 

mada 6, 85. 

makw 6, 8; 12. 4. 

mavrotos 1, I, 14. 

napa 7,6; 18. 29; 15. 80; 
17. 15, 26. 

mapadiddvac 12. 3. 

mapaxadew 15. 74. 

mapadoyaratos 16. 38. 

mapavopos 14, 150. 

mapackevacew 15, 106. 

mapaxwpev 13. 9, II. 

mapeiva 6. 34; 14. 84. 

mapOey 11. 9. 

mapowos 1. 4. 


mas bey 24s9 Die hO, gs 70 
6h 144) 122 3) Sars; 
20 26-8 14. 265-427-516: 
War Owls Ort LO. 5. 

matnp 3. 52; 14. 34. 

matpadeAgos 4. 5 (?). 

marpis 14, 36. 

matpobev 14, 32. 

matp@os 14, 23. 

maverba 6. 36; 15. 44. 

meCevery 5. Verso 2. 

meiOew 1.63; 14. 94. 

meas 8, 10. 

médeoGa 8. IE. 

méeurrevy 6, 28. 

mevOntpia 8, 26. 

mepaivew 5. 343; 6. 36. 

mépyana 10. 40. 

mepi 2.9; 18. 8, 10, 27; 14. 
39, 45, 71, 72; 15. 81; 
UGS .05°4:9; 

mepretvar 17. 13. 

maAné 8. 6. 

mpa 3. 27. 

mAavav 3. 37. 

mAcioy 14. 89; 15. 104. mAcov 
6. 4. 

anv 6. 9; 17. 7. 

mAnpns 4. 27. 

mvevpa 5, 20. 

moet 5. 10, 41, 79; 6. 22, 
AY, 55320505" 13: .35 15; 
17, 26; 15.531) 66,96); 
16. 15, 35, 40- 

mowunrds 14. 7, 39, 43. 

Todepkds 5. Verso 2. 

modeptos 8. 15, 24. 

médvepos 14. 34, 723 15. 81. 

mods 14. 10, 37; 15. 30, 60, 
1 te 

mo\Aaks 13. I. 

modAaxov 16. 33. 

moAvupadns 1, 20. 

modus 1. 1, 8; 6. 164; 16. 

movelv 15, 115. 

movnpés 1. 33; 2. 9, II. 
movos 10. I. 

movtos 3. 53. 

mopitew 14. 86. 


mopos 3. 39. 

mopavvew 3. 17. 

more 4, 10; 5. 153 6. 25; 
MGR tee 16 ey 

norepa 14. 38. 

moTby ha 2,725 17. 

morupepew 1. Q. 

morpos 3. 12. 

nérepov 7.32. 
motté 1. g. 

mov 8. 34. 

mous 4, 4. 

mpaypa 1. g; 6. 26, 38, 99, 
44, 1505. 15. 62,) 75; 

mpakis 4. 4. 

mpaooew 6. 16; 15. 103, 

mpeoBus 6. 28. 

mp 7. 43. 

mpoepxerOa 6. 57. 

mporevaa B. 44. 

mpoopav 15. 72, 73. 

mpés 2.1; 4.58; 5. 49; 6. 
a2 OOKMG 04907 kash eS. 
34; 15. 38,74; 16. 24; 
17.3; 4.8. (Clirrori: 

mpocavanioxew 17. 24. 

mpooéepxerOa 15. 120. 

mpooexew 15, 45. 

mpdabe 8. 26 (?). 

mpoovevae 5. 76. 

mpootacoew 5. 79. 

mpotacoew 15, 121. 

mpotepos 15. 157. 

mpotuevac 8, 12 (?). 

mpopvrdooev 14, 88. 

mpoxetpicew 13. 4. 

mpdxeipos 16, 34. 

mpatos 3.32; 6.15. mparov 
6. 43. 

muvOaverOar ‘7. 46; 8. 29; 
17. 9- 

mip 5. 88, 8g. 

TOS Grol2 ol 3 p17. 

mos 18. 28; 15. 99; 16. 43. 

padios 4. 19. 
padvpia 15. 46. 
pyrwp 13. 26. 
pirrev 6. 158. 
pvduds 18, 29. 


Zahapis 15. 109. 

cavidioy 13. 30. 

catupos 13. 34. 

capes 5. 17. 

geavtov 6. 60. 

onpepov (trhp.) B. 20, 23. 

onredav 16, 22 (?). 

obéevew 4. 65. 

avyn 7. 6. 

aidnpos 4. I. 

aitqdrov 16. 30. 

Swvidns 17. 2. 

oxerrrecOa 16. 35. 

oxorew 5. 76. 

copds 1.6, 13; 18.5. 
tatos 18. 14. 

orovodace 18. II. 

onupis 6. 5. 

oteixew 3. 22. 

atparnyds 15. 116. 

atparoredov 6. 953 15. 98. 

ZrpdBir0s 5. 20, 21. 

orunrnpia 16. 31. 

ov 3. 47, 56; 4. 18, 54, 
BOs 155222411292 1G Ols 
Uo aa Geet ese b (ys a Dd 


ovyyapos 10. 12. 

ovykAn, 6. 108. 

ovykpivew 13. 5, 25. 

ovddaBn 5. 88. 

ovppaxos 15. 27. 

ouppeyvova 7. 28. 

ouppepev 1. 9; 15. 41, 71; 
16. 26. 

cuppopa 6. 137; 10. 38. 

avvapragew 6. 96. 

ovmevar 4, IQ. 

avvodos 15, 110. 

ouvreivey (]. ouvréuvev) 14. 

ovvtiOevae 1. 12. 

ourrvyxavew 2. 5. 

ovokevatew 6. 34, 36. 

oxediagey 13. 12. 

oxjua 16. 41. 

copa 15. 84. 

Se@orparos 6. 122. 

sempia 6. 62; 15. 49, 66, 
105, 119. 

Taivapov 15, 58 (?). 

tav, ® tr. B. 14. 

tarewds 15. 70. 

tapaypds 4. 36. 

tapdooew 6. 159. 

Tacoew 3. 19. 

tapos 4. 6. 

taxa 5. 4. 

taxiota 17. 7. 

taxos 4. 13. 

re 13, 7; 32930, Saris 
885 14.6; 16:eron, 

reioe 1. 1, 5, 6. 

téxvov 8. 43; 6. 136, 180. 

técoapes 14. 76. 

reyon 1. 125 13: 2. 

tikrew 5. 75. 

ris 8. 56; 4. 10, 12, 16, 40; 
5.15 e/ saep.; 6. 4 et saep.; 
132-17)3 Lsenge 

ws L..4 €f Sep; (Sa3 70s 
48; 6. 5, 39, 63, 78; 13. 
23250107 gue 

TAnpev 4, 23. 

TAnva 8, 27. 

Tot 6G. 12); (9.74% 

totovtos §. 42; 14. g1; 15. 
50; 16.57: 

roApyn 18. 23. 

récos 8. 31 (?). 

togoutos 6, 31. 

rore 6. 84. 

tpay@dds 13. 20. 

tpepev 14. 37, 41. 

tpéxew 5. 13. 

tpdmos 6. 39; 16. 37; 18. 

tpopy 14. 45; 17. 28. 

tpopmos 5. 52. 

rpixos 8. 49, 87: 

tuyxavew 4. 33, 47; 5. 77; 
6: 18s 1Su5 ee 

rumrev 11, 4. 

rupavvos 4. 34. 

tvxn 6, 40; 15. 76. 

UBpis 14. 46. 
vypds 16. 23. 
vypérns 16. 12. 
vdwp 16. 13. 


vids 8. 15. 

upets 6. 3; G6. 34; 13. 3; 
14. 94; 15. 55 ef Saep. 

byerepos 15. 92, 119. 

trapxew 14. 88, go. 

trewmety 14, 32. 

trep 14. 35; 15. 1225; 16. 

trepBorn 15. 36. 
tmnxoos 15, 143. 
tré 6. 56; 16. 11. 
troxeta ba 13. 30. 
trodapBavew 15. 70. 
troo.wmay 14, 45. 
borelp... 14. 64. 
votepetv 15. 59. 
vYynrds 7. 49. 

haiverOa 6. 39, 41, 143; 18. 
10, 33- 

gavae 8. 28; 18. 9, 12, 28; 
1G 2955375; E7:.7, LO. 

avepds 6. 142; 15. 28; 16. 
29. gavepos 15. 34. 

aos 4. 30. 

avdos 2. 4, 273 17. 14. 

pedwrAds 17. 10, II. 

gepew 3. 33, 44; 6. 455 8. 

devyew 6. 15. 

@nyevs 9. 2. 

pbcipe 4. 56; 7. 94. 

pOdvos 7. 5. 

prravOperia 15. 36. 


proxwvdvves 15. 61. 

didos 1. 2; 4. 25; 6. 121; 
9. 4,13. tdratos 5. 40. 

poBeioOa 3. 18; 15. 47, 67. 

poBos 3. 37. 

ovos 4. 1. 

ppatew 4. 19; 6. 61. 

ppevoBraBns 4. 55- 

ppyy 7. 7. 

Ppdvipos 13. 14. 

ppovrigev 15, 118. 

puew 5. 58. 

gpudakn 14, 71. 

gvorkds 17. 27. 

vow 7. 31; 12. 13; 16. 39, 

porn 18. 28. 

xatpew 5. 9. 

xadrerds 17. 20. 

xapiCerOa 3. 36. 

xapw 3. 18." 

xeip 4. 58. 

xeipov 13. 24, 26. 

xetporovia 15, 118. 

xopdn 13. 24. 

xopevery 13. 34. 

xopds 4. 35. 

xpav 6.7. xpnoOal. 1; 7.91; 
TS 17,5 1OGe toy 0303 LT: 
20, 28. 

xen 8. 32; 6.55; 14. 92. 

xpnpa 14. 97. 

xpnotos 2. 3; 6. 50. 



xpovos 4. 453; 15. 88. 
xpvaiov 6. 30. 

xpGna 3. 2; 13. 16, 22. 
xvadds 16. 41. 

x@pa 5. 17. 

xopis 14. 38; 15. 92. 

Wadrew 13. 24. 

Warrnprov 13. 31. 

Wadrrns 13. 7, 25. 

wevderOau 10. 8, 36; 14. 
44 (?). 

Wevdos 14. 29; 18. 8. 

Wnpos 17. 25. 

Wopeiv 6. 4. 

Wogos 13. 31. 

yuxn 4. 37- 

OVO. 214043)5, 4. ohh on hne 
22, 40; 6. 14, 25, 83, 
FOR: 14.°48) 515. 38, or 
107. @ poe B. 64. 

ody 13. 4. 

@dés 18. 8, 25. 

as 8. 28. 

as Rela TolO, ER. ote ais 
56: 5.5237 Geant LO. 

32) 9sES5 loa 71. Coll: 
ALO LS. 75) Easel oe 

aorep 4 34; 16. 39; 17. 

éote 7.95; 15. 33. 

apedety 17. 19. 

*Adé~avdpos 85. 4; 88.3; 89.3; 90.2; 92.4; 94.6; 95.2; 96. 2,18; 98.8; 

99. 4; 1384; 145; 171. 

Protemy I. 

Baodevovros Trodepaiov ér. € 84 (a). 1, 16. 

Geot Zarnpes 88. 13. 


Protemy II. 

Baowdevorros Irodepaiov tod TroXepaiovu €r. ¢ (8?) 97. 1. &. « 99. 1; 128. er. 00 
100. 8. 

Baowrevorros Irod. tod Hrod. kat rod viod Lrodepaiou €r. kB 92, I. ér. ky 88.1. ér. kd. 
85.1. ér. xo 96.1, 17. Year lost 184. 

Baotdevovtos LroX. Tod Hod. Swrnpos ér. xn 94. 4. Er. xO 95. 1. Er. Ad OB. 6. 

Baotdeds Hrodepaios kat "Apowdn brddedgos Geoi ’AdeApoi 38. 11. 

Baowred’s rod. 110. 55 ef saep. 

6 Baowret’s 77. 4. Baorevs 110. 51. 

Oeot AdeAhoi 85.5; 88.3; 89.3; 90.3; 92.4; 94.7; 95.3; 96.2, 18; 98.8; 
99. 5; 1384; 145; 171. 

’Apow6n brdderApos 85. 5; 88. 3; 89.4; 90.3; 92.5; 94.7; 95.3; 96.2, 18; 
98.9; 184; 145; 171. AddeAdos 182. 

Years to be referred to this reign: 48 110. 40. ty 110. 44; ye 110. 37. «3 110. 34. 
16110. 12. «{.| 50.8. «xa 89.17; 64. 22. «8 157. «6 40.17; 42.11; 43. 10, 
11; 101.1. xe 85.21; 108.7 (?). Ko 96.9, 25. «€ 83.5; 108.1(?). yn 45. 25; 
46. 21; 83. 6; 94. 13. «@ 47. 37; 95. 11. A 48. 22; 87. 8; 182. Aa 169. 
\B 44.8; 158. Ay 158. Ad 98.1; 158. Year 34=year 35 80. 14. Ae 55. 7; 
80. 5,11; 108. 7(?); 121. 1 (?); 146; 154-5. As 120.1. AC 56.9; 102. 5, 10; 
108. 1(?). An 57. 4; 76.10; 86. 4,19; 102.3, 8. Ad 58.4; 109. 5, IT; 129 ; 

Year of a Ptolemaic era (?) ér. » 84 (4). 1. 

Protemy III. 

Baowrevovros Urodepatov tov UroXepatov Kat Apowdns Gea ’AdeApGr Er. y 145. Er. 8 91. 
18(?), é. e171. é.7 89. 1. ér. ke 90. I. 

Baowdev’s Irodepatos 34. I. 

6 Baowdevs 82. 21, 30. 

Gcoi Evepyérae 89. 3; 9O. 3; 171. 

Years to be referred to this reign: 8 82.1; 38. 10; 51. 4,6; 61.9; 62. 17; 106. 
1, 2; 188; 140: » 658. 13; 71. 3, 113.107. 2,.8; 114.35 13G—7-etat eto 
884.2, 12; 78.24. ¢ 72. 3,18; 88:16. ¢ 82.17; 117(?) 6, 175 4 p-2305 En) 
1, 6,17. 6 81. 4, 10,18, 22;,82. 12,22, 31. «8 Si. 1, 9.) te 70. Orem 148 ; 
165. .¢108.1,9, 11. «69.10; 144; 163. .6 386.1, 7; 66.6; 67.3; 70 (a). 
12; 105.1; 162. «8104.6; Bx104. 1, 3, 8. «¢ 90. Io. 



Eavdixod Mexip (?) «8 (22nd year of Philadelphus) 92. 6. 
‘YrepBeperaiov xO Maam «xO (35th year of Philadelphus) 146. 
‘Apremiaiov ky Tlayav KB (36th year of Philadelphus) 7H keteks 

Te “MONTES 385 


Atos 82. 1; 84 (a). 2, 17. Aaiowos 82. 17; 86. 3, 18; 97, introd.; 
‘AneAXNatos 82. 17; 97. 4. 99.6; 102. 3, 9; 129. 

Ilepizrios 89. 5. Tlavypos 47.9; 57. 4; 84 (a). 5, 21. 
Avotpos 96. 3, 9, 19, 26; 110. 41. Agus 82. 31; 88. 4; 110. 45; 171. 
Eaviucos 9O. 10; 92. 6. Topmiatos 82. 22; 90. 4. 

*"Apreuiowos 77. 8; 145. ’YmepBeperatos 82. 12; 110. 47; 14